Florida editorial roundup

Recent editorials from Florida newspapers:

___

Dec. 16

Sun Sentinel on Gov. Rick Scott not suspending indicted public officials:

If everything was on the up and up, as their lawyers insist, why did board members at Broward Health secretly meet at a hotel, a restaurant and over the phone with attorneys dishing dirt on their interim CEO?

And why, if everything was above snuff, did they act as though they’d never met the Alabama lawyer whose report at an impromptu board meeting led them to suddenly fire CEO Pauline Grant?

And why, with a Broward County grand jury having indicted two sitting board members (and others) for breaking the Sunshine Law on public meetings, are they still in office?

Florida governors typically suspend public officials who face criminal charges related to their public duties, until they’ve had their day in court.

But not Gov. Rick Scott.

In fact, Gov. Scott refuses to address the indictments handed down Dec. 12 by 12 Broward citizens, serving as grand jurors, who found probable cause to believe that five Broward Health officials violated the Sunshine Law in the walk-up to Grant’s dismissal last December.

“We’re reviewing it,” a governor’s spokeswoman said of the indictment that accuses board chairman Rocky Rodriguez, interim CEO Beverly Capasso, general counsel Lynn Barrett, board member Christopher Ure and former board member Linda Robison of conspiring to violate the state’s open-meetings law.

Up the road in Martin County, the governor is doing the same thing.

Several weeks ago, two Martin County commissioners were charged with breaking the public records law by failing to disclose emails about public business. Earlier this year, the commission paid $500,000 - in taxpayer funds - to settle a lawsuit that alleged the county destroyed, altered and delayed producing public records about a rock mine, reports Treasure Coast Newspapers.

“Our office will review it,” the governor’s spokeswoman told their reporter.

What’s the hold up?

You’d think Gov. Scott would have learned lessons from his run-ins with the laws on public records and open meetings.

Two years ago, Gov. Scott spent $700,000 in taxpayer money to settle lawsuits alleging he and several staff members created personal email accounts to hide their communications, in violation of state public records laws.

That same year, Gov. Scott and the Cabinet spent $55,000 in taxpayer money to settle a lawsuit accusing them of violating the open meetings law. In that case, Scott’s general counsel visited Gerald Bailey, the head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and suggested that the governor and Cabinet wanted him gone. Problem was, no such thing had been discussed - let alone voted upon - at a public meeting.

Though Florida prides itself on its government-in-the-sunshine laws, the consequences for violating them are peanuts. The charges are misdemeanors. The fine is only $500. Other than ego or pride, violators have little to lose - aside from being suspended or removed from office.

Also, state attorneys are reluctant to pursue Sunshine Law violations, given their low-level status and the difficulty in proving them beyond a reasonable doubt. Last year, a group of University of Florida students surveyed every state attorney’s office in Florida and found virtually none pursuing such cases.

So kudos to Broward State Attorney Mike Satz for asking his public corruption unit to investigate the events of Dec. 3, 2016, when Broward Health’s board convened a spur-of-the-moment meeting to fire the interim CEO.

Those of us in the audience that day sat in shock. We wanted to hear what Grant had allegedly done wrong, but no one ever said. Not a single specific was offered. And not a single commissioner asked.

It was like they already knew.

Then, without any discussion, board members voted to hire a management company - despite being down to three finalists in their search for a permanent CEO.

Florida’s Sunshine Law prohibits board members from talking to one another outside of public meetings. It also prohibits someone from serving as a back-channel conduit to help them avoid public discussion of matters in the public interest, matters on which they will vote.

Yet as we said at the time, there was former Commissioner Beverly Capasso saying: “We all know what the right thing is to do.” Really? What all did they know?

And former Commissioner Linda Robison saying Broward Health could not have its interim CEO “be under criminal investigation and still be in charge of the facilities.” Under criminal investigation? By whom?

In truth, this incident was one of several we’ve witnessed at Broward Health that led us to call for Satz to investigate.

For doing so, Satz was slammed by the district’s legal team, including former Attorney General Bob Butterworth, who’s been a champion of open government.

A statement - listing Butterworth’s name first - called the indictments “the most misguided prosecution we have ever seen.” It said Satz’s office was manipulated by people who left Broward Health “because of their mismanagement and corruption.” And it said the investigation “was predetermined, biased and manipulated from the start.”

Satz said he could not discuss the case or what happened in the grand jury room.

In an interview, Butterworth says he’s convinced no two board members met together at the Westin Hotel, or Mario’s Catalina Restaurant, or spoke together on the phone. “This is crazy. They were never, ever together in the same room with people who had information they had to look at.”

“I believe it’s appropriate for the general counsel to - or other people with the general counsel to - individually talk to the commissioners about what’s going on in the district. Not to tell them, ’OK, I’ve already spoken to two or three board members and this is what they’re going to do,’ ” he said.

“It appears everything they did was in accordance with the law and that, as one lawyer has stated in the review, they were operating on the advice of lawyers,” Butterworth said.

Speaking of lawyers, someone should audit how many millions of dollars Broward Health is spending on legal fees. From what we see, you’d think the public trough had a bottomless pit.

Broward Health leaders deserve their day in court, no question.

But leaving them in place until then creates too much uncertainty and disruption.

And it’s unfair to ask taxpayers to trust an organization led by people under criminal indictment.

Last year, Gov. Scott suspended two Broward Health board members based on a letter from his inspector general, who feared they might interfere in an investigation.

Those citizens on a grand jury found probable cause to believe two board members broke the law is sufficient cause for suspension, too.

Online: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/

___

Dec. 19

The Tampa Bay Times on the state Supreme Court declining to decide if Gov. Rick Scott can appoint three new justices on the day he leaves office:

The Florida Supreme Court punted and invited a constitutional crisis by declining to decide now whether Gov. Rick Scott can appoint three new justices on the day he leaves office. Outgoing governors should not be able to pack the court on their way out the door, and voters have made clear they oppose such a brazen power play. Since the court has failed to act, perhaps the Constitution Revision Commission can put an amendment on the 2018 ballot that would allow voters to provide clarity.

The Florida League of Women Voters and Common Cause asked the Supreme Court to rule that an incoming governor would appoint new justices when current justices are required to retire on the same day the outgoing governor leaves office. Attorneys for Scott asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, asserting that the three departing justices will reach their mandated retirement the end of Jan. 7, 2019, while Scott will remain until his successor is sworn into office on Jan. 8.

Ruling last week, the court said it couldn’t act on a matter that hasn’t yet happened. The majority expressed no opinion on the core issue. “The matter the league seeks to have resolved is not ripe,” the majority wrote, “and this court lacks jurisdiction.”

That opinion was appropriately criticized by Justice R. Fred Lewis, who warned that the court may have invited a “constitutional crisis” and lowered the bar for public protections by requiring that a “calamitous result” occur before Floridians could seek any legal relief. Florida law has generally allowed for legal intervention to prevent “significant impacts on the operation of government,” Lewis wrote - a commonsense, reasonable and logical standard “the majority now negates.”

“Magnificent trees cut,” he wrote, “pristine waters fouled, and unthinkable harm inflicted upon our citizens, which may not be prevented when the actor plans and even announces his intentions. Today, we have a new test.”

Justices Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente agreed with the court majority’s decision but not its reasoning, arguing the court had the right to act prior to the governor appointing a justice but leaving open the chance that Scott would not infringe upon the authority of his successor. One of Scott’s lawyers even conceded in oral arguments that Scott may not have the authority to make the appointments.

This issue isn’t new, benign or particularly difficult for voters to understand. Previous governors from both parties have sought to prevent this power grab during a transition. Former Govs. Bob Graham, a Democrat, and Bob Martinez, a Republican, both avoided potential confrontations by allowing their successors to fill court vacancies. Facing this situation in 1998, the departing Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles and incoming Republican Gov. Jeb Bush agreed to interview candidates before jointly naming a new Supreme Court nominee.

Florida voters recognized the risks of allowing a departing governor to pack the courts and rejected a constitutional amendment in 2014 that would have clearly given the appointment authority to the outgoing governor. But the court’s ruling last week shows that the voters’ intent needs to be spelled out clearly in the state Constitution. The Constitution Revision Commission should put a measure on the ballot next year that clearly defines that term-ending appointments are made by an incoming governor. But don’t hold your breath, because it would take a minor miracle for members of the commission appointed by Scott and his allies to take this issue up.

This is a political issue as much as a constitutional one. The three retiring justices - Lewis, Quince and Pariente - lean toward the liberal side, and in replacing them, Scott sees an opportunity to shape the political balance of the court for a decade or more. But no fair, clear reading of term limits would allow this. If voters don’t get to clarify the issue, it will be back before the court with little time for thoughtful deliberation.

Online: http://www.tampabay.com/

___

Dec. 19

Ocala Star-Banner on the Florida Legislature’s ethics rules:

In Tallahassee, the concept of nudge-nudge wink-wink employment deals is by no means unfamiliar. It is, after all, home to one of the Southeast’s athletic powerhouses - and the Florida Legislature, where the potential for shenanigans can be as boundless as the imaginations of the public servants who toil there.

Of course, most public servants take care not to cross ethical or legal boundaries. But some do. That’s why legislators, and legislative employees, should take extra care to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

An investigation by The Associated Press’ Gary Fineout bears that out. Fineout reviewed a year’s worth of requests by legislative staff to “moonlight” in second jobs. Many were unremarkable - tutors, flight instructors or restaurant servers. But other outside employment showed significant potential for conflict, including employees accepting work at public colleges and universities that routinely seek legislative funding, and legislative aides working for companies that handle political social media.

One of the most notable cases: Fred Piccolo, a spokesman for House Speaker Richard Corcoran, did graphic-design work for Florida Politics, a leading political-journalism website. There’s no evidence of any “play for pay” in Florida Politics’ feisty coverage of Corcoran, but the relationship was not disclosed as House rules require.

As incoming speaker, Corcoran made a name for himself championing sweeping ethics reforms. As he’s entering his last session (and apparently setting up a run for governor), Corcoran should work with Senate President Joe Negron to whittle away at this potentially problematic practice of moonlighting.

He’ll face some pushback. But even the lowest-paid legislative staffers have access to lawmakers who wield enormous power, and Floridians have a right to know that lobbyists and favor-seekers aren’t currying favor by providing cushy second jobs for staff.

Moonlighting isn’t the only ethics issue the Legislature should consider this session. In fact, the Florida Commission on Ethics approved a list of suggested reforms in August, and many of them merit serious consideration.

The commission’s suggestions include:

. An expansion of the state’s conflict of interest laws. Under current rules, government officials are prohibited from having a “contractual relationship” with companies doing business with their agency. This proposal would block a fairly obvious dodge to that rule - extending the prohibition to corporations formed or owned by government officials. It makes so much sense that it’s surprising to learn it wasn’t already the law.

. Expanded financial disclosure rules for local officials. Florida has two financial disclosure forms; the one that most local officials file is far vaguer and less informative than the “full and complete disclosure” required of state and some county constitutional officers.

. Better disclosure of potential conflicts. Under current law, local officials aren’t required to disclose a potential conflict of interest until a particular matter is put to a vote. “That means the official can make every effort to persuade his or her colleagues without telling them (and the public) about the conflict,” the commission noted.

The commission also suggested a formal legislative inquiry into the rules governing private companies that contract to perform government functions - a considerably bigger issue to bite off. With the 2018 legislative session set to kick off in just three weeks, this issue is far too big, and too complex, to address this year. But Florida has outsourced hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of government services - everything from prison operation to foster care - and taxpayers certainly deserve more oversight.

Online: http://www.ocala.com/