By George Volsky
georgevolsky@aol.com

Giving former Building and Zoning Director Margaret Pass $99,000 in exchange for a promise not to sue the city over her dismissal and to keep her secrets forever, Vice Mayor Bill Kerdyk said: “We need to move on and put it behind us.” 

Kerdyk was one third right. The city is moving on - sure, the calendar grimly advances; but politically the city commission has moved backward, from bad to terrible. Kerdyk was also wrong saying that the commission has put the issue behind. Unless there is a total amnesia of the electorate, buying secrets will be an important issue in the future elections.

If Kerdyk’s vote was surprising, the vote of Commissioner Maria Anderson was shocking to many. Last February, Anderson not only vetoed giving Pass any money – then it was $275,000 – but also, in a strong statement, said that such a payment equaled to giving fired employees a license to raid the city’s coffers. But that was a few weeks before her hotly contested election. 

By agreeing to the Pass monetary settlement, which has a strict secrecy clause, the commissioners appeared to have carved in stone their key motto: Paying city money to keep unpalatable facts or possibly transgressions from the public is no vice. As some of them sometimes laugh approving such payments, they seem to be confirming an old adage: Outside smile often hides inside vile.

In February, all commissioners voted down the $275,000 payment recommendation made by embattled City Attorney Elizabeth Hernandez. Last week, it was James Crosland, the labor counsel paid by her office, who recommended giving Pass $99,000. Hernandez abstained from participating in the discussion and left the commission’s chamber.

One way or the other, for years Hernandez has been closely involved in cases which many in City Hall call “purchasing cover up” with taxpayer money. These secret deals have featured prominently under the mayoralty of Don Slesnick which began in April 2001.  

The first such major and protracted case began about six years ago. Carmen Lizama-Gaspa, director of the Purchasing Department sued the city over the refusal of the then city manager David Brown to give her the earned retirement, DROP. Several lawyers at the time said Lisama was entitled to DROP, as did Jack Eads, the former city manager whom Brown succeeded.

But Hernandez, Brown continued with the case until one day, five years ago, the insurance company that was covering a part of the litigation’s cost told the duo to settle, which they did. One reason, widely reported at the time, was that Lisama began hinting that she had a “closet-full” of documents compromising the city attorney, the manager and several commissioners. 

The city settled, and pronto, Lizama got $500,000, paid mostly by insurance; the bill for the case’s large legal expenses went to the taxpayers. But in a quid-pro-quo the city commission got a guarantee from Lizama not to reveal any of her secrets.  To this day Lizama refuses even reported close friends a peek into her “explosive closet.” It is so despite the fact that to say that she’s only giving Brown and Hernandez a stink eye would be a gross understatement.

The commission and Hernandez treated Brown with white gloves, with the city attorney in the midst of it, too. After he was found to have falsified city documents and charged and convicted on a civil case (Miami-Dade police concluded the charge should have been a felony), Brown stayed on thanks to the commission’s indulgence.

In the law-abiding municipalities, the city attorney would have advised that a document falsifier be fired on the spot. It wasn’t until Olga Garcia, Brown’s ex-mistress and Slesnick’s assistant for four years, accused her lover of past sexual harassment that the commission forced the manager to resign.  The Brown-Olga extramarital affair was known to virtually all city employees, except – incredibly – the city commission. 

But before he left, in addition to a generous “golden parachute” Brown received a huge settlement for what he reported as his unpaid vacations and sick days, the amount which many considered inflated but which the commission didn’t question. The icing on the cake (it’s relevant to recall that once Brown used city money to buy his own birthday cake), was $25,000 which he paid himself when he changed annual sick leave rules, which most lawyers, and even initially Hernandez, believed to be an illegal  action. The case wasn’t important because of the money. It was relevant because of the secrecy of  Hernandez’s operations. 

Last March, when the then acting city manager, Maria Jimenez discovered Brown’s rule change, she met with Hernandez and Crosland. (Hernandez told the commission she didn’t attend that meeting. Documents from her office suggest she didn’t tell the truth.) As a result of the meeting, Crosland drafted Jimenez’ detailed letter to Brown telling him that what he did was illegal and demanding that within 60 days he return the $25,000.

It is still a secret what happened between March and August. Then out of the blue, on August 27 Hernandez read to the commission a brief Crosland statement  saying that “A resolution of the City gives the City Manager authority to promulgate the Rules.” Thus, Hernandez “advised” the commission, any action against Brown would be futile. Without any probing questions, the commissioners agreed to let Brown have the $25,000.

The commission’s lack of curiosity was astounding. Nobody, not even Slesnick who is a lawyer, asked why Crosland had changed his mind, and most important, when that “a resolution” was passed and what it said.

It turned out that the resolution on which Crosland based his Brown-exculpatory opinion was No. 6844 of April 12, 1957. A simple quarry with the City Clerk’s office  proved that in 53 years that vaguely-worded resolution had been invalidated at least half a dozen times, making a rule change like that of Brown, subject to the approval of the commission, which didn’t happen. Why Crosland could have justified his position with an invalid, 52-old resolution has now been unanswered for four weeks. Significantly, not a single commissioner has been interested so far in clarifying that contradiction either.

The secrets of the equally well remunerated Olga Garcia  – including some details of Slesnick’s operations, of her dalliance with Brown, and  of what the mayor knew about it -  are sealed for now.  But the game isn’t over until it’s over. Some of her friends report that she is still seething  with indignation over her treatment by the city.  So no one in City Hall is closing the book on what could be more than just gossipy, salacious items.

The Pass issue was entirely different because the possibility of her “spilling the beans” could have had much serious consequences for many people. For decades, Pass was in a position to “help” scores of influential Coral Gables residents, including the commissioners. Every developer, real estate agent, and lawyers and lobbyists work for builders, sometimes had to ask the Building and Zoning Department for a favor.  Most such requests – whether granted or not - were assuredly legitimate and innocuous. But over the years there were probably some that called for bending the rules, or worse.

Thus what Pass knew and remembered represented a danger to many people, an implicit peril even without her lawyer whispering it. That invisible Damocles sword handing over some individuals made the Pass deal inevitable, unless three commissioners had the courage to oppose it. That didn’t happen. The two dissenting votes were probably cast because the majority had been preordained.

Last week Hernandez recused herself when the Pass issue came up before the commission, supposedly because her conflict of interest (she had recommended to Pass her attorney), although the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust didn’t chastise her for it. But Hernandez possibly agreed with the commission’s Advocate, Michael P. Murawski, whose September “Recommendation” reads:

“Probably cause exists to believe that on or about May 14, 2008, Respondent, Elizabeth Hernandez violated the Miami-Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics, specifically, section 2-11.(p) as well as The City of Coral Gables Ethics  Code Section 2-235; both ordinances impose a prohibition on recommending professional services.”

In addition to Hernandez’ attorney recommendation, it is known that Pass, for years a close friend of our city attorney, has been visiting her in City Hall on several occasion, contacts that some lawyers described as being at least  inappropriate. As far as it is know, Hernandez has kept her talks with Pass secret, or if she informed the commission, the mayor didn’t make them public either. 

Secrecy, therefore, rules in the commission. Thus according to the text of the Coral Gables-Margaret Pass deal  the only thing that residents will ever  get for their $99,000 will be nine words: “The parties resolved the matter to their mutual satisfaction.”