[0:15] - Good evening everyone.

[0:17] I hereby call this special meeting of the city commission

[0:20] to order at exactly five o'clock.

[0:23] The purpose of this special meeting is limited

[0:25] to hearing the articles of impeachment presented

[0:28] by the special prosecutor

[0:30] and determining whether the city commission will

[0:32] accept those articles.

[0:34] The city clerk will now read the rules in the order

[0:36] of the procedure for the special meeting.

[0:40] - For purposes of this special meeting, the following rules

[0:42] and order of procedure shall apply.

[0:44] This special meeting is convened solely to hear the articles

[0:46] of impeachment presented by the special prosecutor,

[0:49] which have now been publicly filed,

[0:51] and to allow the commission to determine whether

[0:53] to accept the articles of impeachment.

[0:55] The vice mayor shall serve as the presiding officer.

[0:57] No public comment will be heard.

[0:59] The special prosecutor shall be

[1:00] provided 15 minutes to present the articles of impeachment.

[1:04] Following the special prosecutor's presentation,

[1:06] the defense shall be provided 15 minutes

[1:09] to present its response to the articles of impeachment.

[1:12] Following the presentations, the vice mayor shall call

[1:14] for a vote of the commission

[1:15] to accept the articles of impeachment.

[1:17] A motion shall be made, followed by a second,

[1:20] and a roll call vote will be taken.

[1:22] Following the commission's vote,

[1:23] the vice mayor shall adjourn the special meeting.

[1:26] The special meeting has a firm end time of 5:50 PM.

[1:29] This concludes the rule and order of procedure.

[1:34] - We will not recognize the special prosecutor.

[1:39] - I'm Mayanne Downs. I was appointed

[1:40] by Judge Munyon at your request to serve

[1:43] as the special prosecutor in this matter.

[1:50] - Excuse me, Vice Mayor. Is this being live streamed

[1:53] or this is just in here? I

[1:55] - Believe,

[1:57] I believe it is live streamed. Am I correct? It's

[1:59] - Being streamed

[2:00] to closed circuit TV out front out in the lobby for folks

[2:04] who cannot make it inside here today.

[2:05] - That it's not being live streamed?

[2:07] - No. - Can we live stream it and we turn on the streaming?

[2:12] - No. We would need to set up closed captioning,

[2:14] so we can't do that right now.

[2:16] - Okay. Just wanted to ask for the record. Thank you.

[2:18] - Okay.

[2:23] - You now have 15 minutes. All

[2:25] - Right.

[2:26] Thank you very much.

[2:26] - Yes. - Good afternoon. Madam Vice Mayor, Mr.

[2:30] Mayor, pro tem, commissioners.

[2:33] As I said a moment ago,

[2:35] after a vote of this body, pursuant to your code

[2:39] of ethics under your court ordinances, Judge Lisa Munyon,

[2:44] the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, appointed me

[2:47] as special prosecutor pursuant to the process

[2:51] that is set forth in your own code.

[2:54] What I have done since I've been appointed was

[2:58] what your code authorized me to do

[3:01] and her order directed me to do.

[3:06] I want to point out as we begin this process,

[3:09] I have no client here today.

[3:12] No client in this matter.

[3:14] I represent no faction, no group, no political party.

[3:20] I don't know anyone in this room, to my knowledge,

[3:24] with the exception of Commissioner Martinez, who I met

[3:27] with one time in my office, found her to be truthful

[3:31] and helpful, and Mayor Espinoza, who I met

[3:35] with one time in my office, I also found her to be truthful.

[3:39] I have no ax to grind.

[3:42] I have no interest other than discharging my

[3:46] responsibilities as Judge Munyon

[3:49] and your code directed that I do.

[3:54] Just a moment about me only

[3:56] because there have been accusations made about

[4:00] me and my role.

[4:02] I have been practicing law for 38 years.

[4:05] I'm a Florida native.

[4:07] I have no connection with Kissimmee at all except

[4:11] for one very important one.

[4:13] My mother was born here in 1930.

[4:15] Shortly after she was born, the family moved to Orlando

[4:19] and that's where I've always lived.

[4:21] I have served as city attorney for the city

[4:25] of Orlando since 2007.

[4:28] I also serve as the city attorney for Key West.

[4:31] I think I'm the only person in the state

[4:33] to hold two city attorney positions.

[4:36] In connection with investigations, I served

[4:39] as president of the Florida Bar.

[4:41] The Florida Bar disciplines and investigates lawyers.

[4:45] And I served for 10 years on the Constitutional JQC,

[4:50] the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

[4:53] And in that role, I investigated

[4:56] complaints against judges

[4:58] and was involved in discipline of judges.

[5:01] I mention those things only to say

[5:04] I take my responsibilities and my obligations to each of you

[5:09] and to this community very seriously.

[5:12] And again, I have no dog

[5:16] or cat in this fight.

[5:18] None. So I am asking you here today

[5:22] for one thing.

[5:24] I'm asking you to do what your code says you should do.

[5:29] I'm asking you to complete the process that you voted

[5:33] to begin and that started with my appointment.

[5:37] Let me tell you what today is and what it is not.

[5:42] You may be told some things a little bit later about

[5:45] what this is and isn't.

[5:47] I'm going to ask you to very specially

[5:50] and carefully consider what we're doing here.

[5:53] All I have done so far is investigate sufficient

[5:58] to determine whether there was probable cause

[6:03] that your code of ethics was violated.

[6:06] Each of you received a copy of my report

[6:10] and my articles which were filed under oath.

[6:12] I found that there was clear

[6:16] probable cause not to establish the guilt

[6:21] of Mayor Espinoza, but to establish sufficient evidence.

[6:27] And all the evidence I relied upon is undisputed

[6:30] and was told to me by her

[6:33] that this matter should go to trial.

[6:36] So I just want to remind us,

[6:37] this is a little like when you get a ticket.

[6:40] It doesn't mean you're guilty.

[6:42] It doesn't mean anything other than you're being given

[6:45] notice that you have to proceed with the legal process.

[6:49] So you are not being asked today, members

[6:53] of this commission, whether the mayor is guilty or innocent.

[6:57] You are not being asked

[6:59] to decide if in the future she is proven guilty

[7:03] what the punishment or consequence should be.

[7:07] You are not making the decision the commission on

[7:09] ethics might make.

[7:11] You are not involved in any

[7:13] investigation by law enforcement.

[7:15] Your job is simply to decide yes

[7:19] or no to proceed with your codes

[7:23] next step, which is a trial.

[7:26] And we'll get back in a few moments

[7:28] to the precise requests I am making of you.

[7:33] Here is the conduct at issue.

[7:37] And I say again, the conduct that was in my report

[7:41] and in my articles is conduct that was proven

[7:45] by your records.

[7:47] It was substantiated by the things that the mayor told me,

[7:51] but I don't rely on those things.

[7:53] I rely on what your records establish.

[7:58] Your records establish that the mayor initiated

[8:01] and promoted the Boost 2.0 Small Business Program.

[8:07] Your records establish that the City of Kissimmee qualified

[8:12] for federal money under ARPA which was a

[8:17] a federal American rescue plan program

[8:22] that sent money down to the local level

[8:25] to provide a wide range of benefits to the community.

[8:30] Your records established that then

[8:33] the mayor voted three times to keep

[8:38] that BOOST program going.

[8:40] On December 17th, 2024, she voted, along with others,

[8:44] to reallocate $1 million to the BOOST program.

[8:49] On April 15th, 2025, she voted

[8:53] to approve the program framework.

[8:56] You know, how it would work.

[8:58] And on September 3rd, 2025, she voted

[9:02] to reallocate another

[9:04] $375,000 into the grant pool.

[9:08] She did not disqualify herself from one

[9:13] single one of those votes,

[9:16] nor did she disclose at that time

[9:19] or at any time a plan to receive those monies herself.

[9:25] Three applications came in, along with others,

[9:29] totaling $50,000 for businesses the mayor owns

[9:34] or has an interest in.

[9:36] How do we know that? The public

[9:38] records of the state of Florida.

[9:40] First, a Dan's LLC.

[9:43] $20,000 of federally funded public money.

[9:49] Mayor Espinoza is identified as the 100%

[9:53] owner of that entity.

[9:56] Kissimmee Diner Incorporated, $15,000.

[10:01] Mayor Espinoza's own form one that each of you have

[10:06] to fill out and file with the state of Florida says

[10:10] that she owned in excess of 5% of that entity.

[10:15] Real Estate Gallery, LLC, $15,000

[10:19] owned indirectly by the mayor

[10:21] and her husband through a trust.

[10:23] And if we proceed to trial, you will see certified copies

[10:27] of all of these records in the State

[10:30] of Florida public records.

[10:32] All three loans were approved. All checks were cashed.

[10:37] At no point did the mayor disclose to this body

[10:43] or to this community her interest in those loans

[10:48] and in those businesses receiving those loans.

[10:52] The minutes show no disclosure, the recorded records

[10:56] of the meetings show no disclosure.

[10:59] She never asked the city attorney or this commission.

[11:03] Your code provides that any one

[11:06] of you can ask this commission

[11:09] for guidance if you need it.

[11:13] Nor, and she was candid in answering this question when I

[11:17] asked for it, nor did she call the commission on ethics,

[11:21] which has a toll-free hotline available to any who call it

[11:26] to find out if the behavior you're considering

[11:30] is illegal or not.

[11:33] As a lawyer, I have the benefit of that for the Florida Bar.

[11:36] If I have any doubts, I can dial that number

[11:39] and the Florida Bar will tell me if what I'm thinking

[11:42] of doing is right or not.

[11:46] On December 5th, 2025,

[11:50] the city attorney at that time, who had learned

[11:54] of the applications after the fact

[11:58] and learned of the payments after the fact, wrote the mayor

[12:03] and told her citing Florida Statutes Section 112,

[12:08] Section 1123137, 313

[12:12] and 1123143 Florida Statutes

[12:17] and three opinions from the Florida Commission on Ethics

[12:22] that you cannot be a public official

[12:25] and derive contractual financial benefits

[12:29] from the government you're a part of.

[12:31] Cannot do it. And we know

[12:35] that the mayor received that

[12:37] because we have her emails saying she received the letter.

[12:40] She asked for a meeting.

[12:42] To date, she has never returned that money.

[12:47] My only quibble with the former city attorney is

[12:50] that there was a fourth, there were four

[12:55] Commission on Ethics opinions that said you can't do this.

[12:59] One involved a remarkably similar set of facts.

[13:04] A city commissioner who took CRA money for a business

[13:08] that he owned and operated.

[13:10] That was eight months ago. As a result of that conduct, the,

[13:15] the facts of which are, are undisputed.

[13:18] I filed my report and I filed my articles

[13:22] and I have charged through that process,

[13:26] Mayor Espinoza, with a violation of your code section

[13:32] 30-23A that says no city commissioner shall engage in any

[13:35] business or transaction or hold any financial

[13:39] or other personal interest, direct

[13:41] or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge

[13:44] of duties in the public interest

[13:47] or which would tend to impair independence of judgment.

[13:50] Voting money into a program that you vote for, you initiate,

[13:55] you push, and you say yes for

[13:57] and then taking the money under it.

[13:59] That's a textbook example of your code.

[14:03] Two, article two.

[14:04] Three violations of section 30-23B.

[14:09] That section says a commission with a financial

[14:12] or other private interest in legislation shall disclose the

[14:17] nature and extent of

[14:18] that interest on the records of the commission.

[14:21] And it does not apply if the commissioner

[14:24] disqualifies herself.

[14:26] She did neither, not once,

[14:29] but three separate times.

[14:32] Finally, I have charged two violations

[14:35] of section 30-24.

[14:38] That section says, if you have any doubt

[14:42] and anyone who doesn't have doubt, who raised their hand

[14:46] and swore to follow the law of the state of Florida

[14:50] and the United States

[14:51] and to serve in the public interest about whether you could

[14:54] be a public official and take money should have had doubt.

[14:58] That code provision says you got to go to the city attorney.

[15:01] And it separately says you've got

[15:03] to be guided by the advice.

[15:05] So let me conclude by saying this.

[15:11] You are not going to hear, I believe in a few moments, that

[15:15] what I've told you is not true.

[15:18] You're not going to hear that she returned the money.

[15:22] You're not going to hear that she disclosed her

[15:24] interest on the record.

[15:26] You're not going to hear any of that.

[15:28] You're going to hear jurisdictional arguments.

[15:30] You're going to hear let's delay some more.

[15:33] We already had an appeal at the first part

[15:36] of this investigation in which those arguments were made.

[15:40] So here's what I am asking you to do.

[15:43] Please do not be distracted by

[15:47] anything you might hear about

[15:50] what should happen next other than a trial.

[15:54] What you should do and what I'm asking you to do

[15:59] and saying that as you consider what to do

[16:02] is follow your code.

[16:05] Your code says you initiate an investigation, which you did.

[16:10] Your code says the special prosecutor has

[16:13] to find probable cause, which I did.

[16:15] Then your code says you proceed to an impeachment trial.

[16:19] Every defense you hear from mayor's team,

[16:22] she will have every opportunity to present at trial.

[16:26] There is no reason not to proceed with this matter.

[16:30] I am asking you, I believe the community is watching

[16:34] and expecting you to protect the public's interest,

[16:39] to follow your own code,

[16:41] to complete the process you initiated,

[16:44] and to set this matter for trial.

[16:48] Have your city attorney

[16:49] and staff develop an order

[16:51] that tells everybody when it'll be,

[16:53] how the exhibits will work, all that process

[16:56] so everybody knows.

[16:58] And that that order gives every single bit

[17:01] of procedural due process to the mayor

[17:04] that she is absolutely entitled to

[17:07] and that the matter proceed.

[17:11] Thank you.

[17:13] - Thank you. You now recognize the defense. Thank you.

[17:18] - My name is Migdalia Perez

[17:19] and I represent Jackie Espinosa, your city mayor, along

[17:23] with my co-counsel, Michelle LeBron.

[17:25] I don't have as much time to discuss my accolades

[17:29] because I'm here to defend the mayor.

[17:33] Tonight you're not, you are being asked

[17:35] to decide whether the articles

[17:36] of impeachment should move forward to trial.

[17:39] The articles filed by the prosecutor, they are not evidence

[17:43] and they are not findings of guilt.

[17:45] We are not asking you to ignore ethics complaints

[17:49] and we're not asking you to excuse any alleged misconduct,

[17:53] but we are asking you to decide whether the law is clear,

[17:57] whether the evidence is sufficient,

[17:59] and whether this process is fair enough

[18:01] to overturn the will of the people.

[18:04] Before taking this extraordinary step,

[18:07] you should be satisfied of two things.

[18:10] Is this process fair?

[18:12] And do the articles contain enough facts

[18:14] to justify impeachment?

[18:17] Let's talk about fairness.

[18:19] The special prosecutor has offered her

[18:21] interpretation of the law.

[18:23] Her recommendation actually places an

[18:25] extraordinary burden on you.

[18:29] You are not elected.

[18:30] I'm sorry, you are elected public officials.

[18:33] You are not judges.

[18:34] You are not experts on ethics laws

[18:37] and you are being asked to resolve legal disputes.

[18:40] Is that fair to the mayor? It is not.

[18:45] What about fairness in the process?

[18:47] We don't even have a process.

[18:49] The process is being created as we play the game.

[18:53] Is that fair to the mayor?

[18:56] Some comm - some commissioners are being asked

[19:01] to make a decision, may have a personal

[19:04] or political interest in the outcome.

[19:07] Is that fair to ask a commissioner

[19:10] to decide the fate of the mayor?

[19:13] I've been told numerous times through this process, Ms.

[19:16] Perez, this is not a criminal case. And I agree, it's worse.

[19:21] Because at least in a criminal case, due process has teeth.

[19:25] It has meaning. I am speaking to you now,

[19:30] and yet some commissioners are

[19:31] so fixed already in their decisions

[19:34] that maybe they are listening, but they are not hearing.

[19:37] Is that fair to the mayor? Let's talk about the prosecutor.

[19:43] The prosecutor also says, I have no dog or cat in the race.

[19:48] But let's talk about that.

[19:51] She made public comments

[19:52] that also create a serious fairness concern.

[19:56] The mayor exercised her lawful legal right

[19:59] to challenge the appointment of the special prosecutor.

[20:02] The prosecutor spinned that challenge

[20:05] by claiming the mayor was attempting to stop the process.

[20:10] She criticized the mayor. She blamed her for the delay.

[20:13] She blamed her for the expense.

[20:16] Her frustration had nothing to do

[20:18] with determining the whether the mayor had

[20:20] violated the code.

[20:22] She tells you, "I have no dog in the race."

[20:25] It should now actually beg the question, did she?

[20:28] Did her frustration weigh in on her finding probable cause

[20:32] and bringing us here today?

[20:34] Now she wants you to consider her interpretation as facts.

[20:39] These questions are important and they should be considered.

[20:43] Fundamental fairness requires you

[20:46] to reject this process completely.

[20:49] So let's talk about the articles.

[20:51] The articles contain serious legal and factual complaints.

[20:56] I'm sorry, factual problems.

[20:58] They rely on disputed legal conclusions.

[21:01] They omit important facts and they,

[21:05] and they attempt to turn conduct

[21:06] that was never prohibited by the city code.

[21:09] Are we here about the city code?

[21:11] Are we here about the state code?

[21:14] Article one charges the mayor

[21:15] with having a general conflict of interest.

[21:18] That conflict of interest includes applying

[21:21] and accepting Boost funds.

[21:24] The problem here is

[21:25] that the articles do not allege that conflict.

[21:29] The mayor, did she approve her own application?

[21:32] It doesn't allege that.

[21:34] They do not allege that she directed staff to approve them.

[21:37] She ch - she did not change the eligibility requirements.

[21:41] It doesn't say that she asked for preferential treatment.

[21:44] The Boost 2.0 program used federal COVID relief funds.

[21:48] The purposeful BOOST was

[21:50] to mitigate historical financial losses of city businesses

[21:55] during the COVID long before the mayor was a mayor.

[22:00] City staff administered the program

[22:03] under published requirements.

[22:06] The amount of each grant was determined according

[22:09] to established criteria.

[22:11] All eligible applicants received funding.

[22:15] Article one by the prosecutor assumes that

[22:18] receiving funding from a public program automatically

[22:21] establishes a con - a conflict.

[22:24] Yet the prosecutor identifies no rule in the city code

[22:29] that states an elected official

[22:31] or business owned by an office of office, I'm sorry, owned

[22:34] by an official can never participate in a generally

[22:37] available relief program.

[22:40] The prosecutor is arguing state law that belongs

[22:45] with the commission on ethics.

[22:46] We are here for the City of Kissimmee code.

[22:51] Now, if the mayor had changed the rules,

[22:53] pressured employees, approved her own application,

[22:57] or caused another business to be denied,

[22:59] this would be a totally different case.

[23:02] But that's not the evidence before you.

[23:04] The fact that a business connected to the mayor applied

[23:07] for a public program may raise a question,

[23:11] but a question is not proof of misconduct.

[23:14] The city ordinance requires a connection

[23:17] between the mayor's financial interest

[23:19] and the performance of her duties.

[23:22] The article fails to identify any official decision

[23:26] by the mayor that was improperly influenced

[23:29] by her private interest.

[23:32] Article two, violation

[23:34] concerning three commission voting meetings.

[23:38] The prosecutor just laid it out.

[23:39] One vote to allocate the program.

[23:41] One vote approved the framework of the program

[23:44] and one vote added the funds to the program.

[23:47] None of those votes approved the mayor's application.

[23:50] Those votes affected an entire class of eligible city

[23:54] of Kissimmee businesses.

[23:56] Votes to establish

[23:57] or fund a general program is not the same as voting

[24:01] for an award for yourself.

[24:03] The, the special prosecutor is working backwards here.

[24:07] Because the business leader received grants, she's assuming

[24:10] that every earlier vote invited a no personal

[24:13] financial interest.

[24:15] But that's a conclusion.

[24:16] And it's a conclusion that requires evidence about

[24:19] what the mayor knew and intended at the time of the vote.

[24:23] The articles don't tell you that.

[24:25] At the time of the votes,

[24:26] the mayor's business had not applied for a grant,

[24:29] had not been approved or had not received money.

[24:32] In fact, no one knew what the criteria was going

[24:35] to be for the program.

[24:37] Boost 2.0 was not legislation written only

[24:40] for the mayor or her businesses.

[24:43] The special prosecutor repeatedly refers to $50,000,

[24:47] but that amount combines three separate grants involving

[24:50] three separate businesses.

[24:52] Each alleged interest must be considered separately.

[24:54] Who legally owned those businesses?

[24:56] What was the nature of the mayor's interest?

[24:58] Did that interest exist when each boat occurred?

[25:03] Did the mayor know

[25:04] that the particular vote would directly

[25:06] benefit the business?

[25:07] Merely repeating $50,000 does not answer those questions.

[25:12] The report. I'm sorry,

[25:14] the articles also rely on the mayor's publicly filed form

[25:17] one to establish one of the alleged businesses.

[25:21] Now that form may not replace disclosure

[25:24] during a commission meeting,

[25:25] but it does demonstrate one thing,

[25:27] that the interest was publicly reported

[25:30] and it was not secretly con- concealed.

[25:33] Even if a disclosure should have been,

[25:36] should have been made, possible, possible disclosure errors

[25:40] are not the same as corruption, as kickbacks

[25:44] or abuse of your office.

[25:46] This is insufficient to remove an elected mayor.

[25:51] Article three concerns a,

[25:53] concerns a former city attorney's letter.

[25:56] Section 30-24

[25:58] of the city code says a commissioner must have, must ask

[26:02] for an opinion when the commissioner has doubts about

[26:06] whether the city ethic code applies.

[26:08] The articles do not claim that the mayor had such doubt

[26:12] before the applications were filed

[26:14] or even when they were approved.

[26:15] The special prosecutor wants

[26:17] to change the code from when the commission had doubt

[26:20] to when the prosecutor later thinks the

[26:22] commissioner should have had doubt.

[26:24] That's not the code.

[26:26] The special prosecutor further claims that the mayor failed

[26:29] to follow the city attorney's letter.

[26:31] Well, let's look at that letter.

[26:33] The letter did not advise the mayor

[26:35] that she violated the Kissimmee Ethics Code.

[26:39] Rather, it advised

[26:41] that accepting the boost may have constituted a prohibited

[26:45] contractual relationship under Florida Statute Chapter 112.

[26:51] Those words matter. The advisory opinion stated may have.

[26:56] It did not say that she violated a code.

[26:59] Yet the special prosecutor in Article three charges the

[27:03] mayor with violating the city code

[27:06] because she did not get, she did not follow that letter.

[27:09] That just does not fit.

[27:12] The special prosecutor, prosecutor claims

[27:14] that the mayor failed to take corrective action.

[27:17] She said it here today.

[27:18] But section 30-24 does not use those words.

[27:23] The special prosecutor wants to call. Sorry. It.

[27:27] The code does not require special payment,

[27:32] a payment that's required to go back.

[27:33] The special prosecutor wants to call an advisory opinion,

[27:37] an advisory opinion, but let's be clear.

[27:40] The special prosecutor just told you

[27:42] that the city attorney did not know about this

[27:45] until after the fact.

[27:47] You all know better. She signed the program along

[27:50] with the city manager

[27:52] and along with the economic department.

[27:54] So when you say that she did not

[27:55] know, you know that's not true.

[27:58] She know and she failed to advise the,

[28:00] the mayor as she was supposed to.

[28:04] Her advice came after the applications, after the votes, and

[28:08] after the mayor received money.

[28:10] But the prosecutor has turned a letter raising a possible

[28:14] state law concern into a claim

[28:17] that the mayor definitely violated the Kissimmee code.

[28:21] You have to understand there's a di- distinction.

[28:25] She's here about the city code, not the state law.

[28:31] That letter does not support a claim for,

[28:34] for a separate article of impeachment.

[28:36] When you look at all three articles

[28:39] and you consider them together,

[28:40] the most important questions are unanswered.

[28:43] One, what rule did the mayor change for herself?

[28:47] What city employee did she pressure?

[28:49] What false statements did she make?

[28:51] And what special exception did she receive?

[28:54] The articles failed to answer those questions.

[28:58] Now, rejecting those articles does not mean that the

[29:02] ethic rules do not matter.

[29:03] The mayor is not asking to be placed above the law.

[29:07] She's asking that the law be applied correctly

[29:11] through a fair process with the benefit

[29:13] of the decision from the Florida Commission on Ethics.

[29:16] Again, this commission does have independence,

[29:19] but it should be exercised that.

[29:22] I'm sorry, that authority should be exercised carefully.

[29:25] There is no reason why the city must act first.

[29:30] The question is properly

[29:32] before the Florida Commission on Ethics.

[29:37] If the commission finds that no prohibit-

[29:41] prohibited conflict existed,

[29:44] that decision would seriously weaken the claims presented

[29:48] to you by the prosecutor.

[29:50] If the commission on ethics finds a violation,

[29:53] this commission will then have the benefit

[29:56] of a decision from a state agency

[29:59] with the experience Experience

[30:00] and the authority on Florida ethics laws.

[30:04] The mayor is fully prepared

[30:06] to reimburse the city if the state

[30:08] of the Florida commissioner ethics says it was a prohibited

[30:12] contractual relationship.

[30:14] Allowing the state agency

[30:16] to act first does not surrender your authority.

[30:20] It is a careful and responsible use of that authority.

[30:24] And it also avoids inconsistent decisions

[30:28] that we have already seen by these investigations.

[30:33] The responsible decision is to vote no,

[30:36] reject the proposed articles,

[30:38] and permit the Florida Commission on Ethics

[30:41] to complete its investigation.

[30:43] Thank you for your time

[30:44] and thank you for your consideration.

[30:49] - The presentations haven't concluded.

[30:51] I will now call for the commissioner's vote.

[30:54] Do you have a comment, Commissioner Ortiz?

[30:57] - I don't have any comment. - Commissioner -

[31:02] - I have any, I have no comments.

[31:04] - Commissioner Martinez?

[31:07] - I have a question. Sure.

[31:08] We're not trying to make a thing, but for the defense part.

[31:12] So you're referring that the prosecutor is going off in

[31:14] reference to the Commission on Ethics and State

[31:16] and you don't want us to take that in consideration

[31:18] because she has to do it per our charter.

[31:21] I mean, sorry, per our code.

[31:23] - Well, your code, we are here.

[31:26] The prosecutor has alleged violations of your code.

[31:29] Those codes are clearly listed in her

[31:32] articles of impeachment.

[31:33] The Florida, the Florida Statutes Chapter 112,

[31:37] that is properly before the right agency,

[31:39] which is the Florida Commission on Ethics.

[31:41] As you all know, that hearing is to be, is to be, is going

[31:45] to happen in a few days from now.

[31:47] - Yeah. But you said that she's going off the commission on

[31:50] ethics and that's not what she's here for.

[31:51] She's under the code she should be speaking of.

[31:54] But you're asking us to make a decision based on the state,

[31:58] not based on our code. So I'm confused. I'm

[32:00] - Sorry.

[32:01] I'm asking to make a decision on the code.

[32:03] I believe she made a reference

[32:04] to the Florida Commission on Ethics and the co - I'm sorry.

[32:09] She made a comment about the Florida Commission on Ethics.

[32:12] I want to make clear that there is a distinction.

[32:14] We are here on your code,

[32:16] not the Florida Commission on Ethics

[32:18] and the breakdown of the code, the conflict, the disclosure,

[32:22] and the last -

[32:23] - Yeah, I understood.

[32:24] - I - Understood what you were saying, but

[32:25] what I'm trying - So

[32:25] - That's what I'm saying.

[32:26] I'm saying follow the code, not the commission on ethics.

[32:29] In addition to my argument

[32:30] that you allow the commission on ethics to deal with

[32:33] what the true question is,

[32:34] was this a prohibited contractual relationship,

[32:37] which is not part of your code?

[32:40] - And commissioner, if I might add to that, what I said is,

[32:43] I believe you'll hear an argument

[32:46] that this matter should be decided

[32:48] by the commission on ethics.

[32:49] That's the same argument they already made to the

[32:53] Sixth District Court of Appeal who bounced it.

[32:56] I said that's not a valid argument.

[32:58] The Commission on Ethics doesn't have your

[33:01] authority to do with your code.

[33:04] Your code is not before the Commission on Ethics.

[33:07] You are the only ones who can apply your code.

[33:11] So this is a, a little bit of

[33:16] confusion being generated in the record.

[33:18] The Commission on Ethics is going to do what it's going

[33:20] to do about state law, no matter what you do.

[33:24] Only you can follow your code of ethics.

[33:28] - If, if I could jump in real quick.

[33:29] Number one, there was no confusion.

[33:32] Not on the part of the defense.

[33:34] Number two, the Sixth DCA did not say that is not valid.

[33:39] Okay? They made no, they made no rulings on the merit.

[33:43] So that's improper for the prosecutor to say.

[33:47] - They denied. They - Denied it without a ruling

[33:50] - On the merits. There's no

[33:51] - Requirement.

[33:52] So it's improper that you would make that comment.

[33:54] - And - My argument was based on - Thank you.

[33:57] Oh, I appreciate you. Thank you.

[34:00] - Mayor, I have a question for the city manager.

[34:05] For grants. It would be city grants,

[34:07] whatever grants we out there, nonprofits.

[34:10] What is the process prior to them receiving the grants?

[34:15] How do they get approved?

[34:19] - It can vary with the grant,

[34:21] but primarily the majority of our grants are dealt with

[34:25] by the economic development department.

[34:27] So they run the process for both receipt

[34:32] of the applications, review of the applications,

[34:36] and then the economic development director underwrites

[34:40] basically is the underwriter that determines whether

[34:42] or not they comply with the requirements

[34:45] of the grant program and, and issues the approval.

[34:48] - So the economic director actually approves any grants.

[34:53] Deny them or approve them?

[34:55] - Yes. - Right. So if grant comes over with

[35:01] it, we didn't bring out a red flag.

[35:06] Something will tell you why is it

[35:08] she, she, that's a conflict.

[35:10] That's just a conflict. Right. Right.

[35:12] So it, at my point, my thing is, it could have stopped.

[35:15] All this could have just been avoided at this point. Right.

[35:19] So just moving forward, that's my opinion.

[35:23] I would not be impeaching the mayor. Thank you.

[35:31] - May as well. I'm not going to impeach the mayor.

[35:36] Okay.

[35:41] I call the motion. That's my comment.

[35:45] - Thank you. Do I have a motion to accept -

[35:48] - Madam May, Madam Vice Mayor,

[35:49] before you make that motion, I had a question.

[35:51] If you allow me to make my comment.

[35:52] - Sure. - Thank you, Vice Mayor.

[35:58] So I know that today is not supposed to be an open dialogue.

[36:01] We're just supposed to accept or not.

[36:03] Before this motion moves forward, I do want

[36:06] to tell my fellow commissioners,

[36:09] this is not determining whether there's guilt or no guilt.

[36:13] - Object. She is not part of this hearing.

[36:16] That is improper that she's making comments.

[36:19] Everybody just made a comment right now. You,

[36:23] - You should not allow any member

[36:26] to interrupt any commission member.

[36:28] That's improper.

[36:31] - So may I proceed with my statement?

[36:33] - Yes. - So

[36:37] let me get back to where I was.

[36:40] Does anybody remember where I was?

[36:42] I was so brutally interrupted. Establishing guilt

[36:45] - Or innocence.

[36:46] - Yeah. So we're not establishing guilt or innocence.

[36:49] Now, if, if the defense

[36:51] and I, I completely agree with Commissioner Alvarez.

[36:55] If there would've been a caught on this,

[36:57] we wouldn't be where we are today.

[36:59] But instead of just pushing this under the rug,

[37:02] we have a duty to the people.

[37:04] I believe that if we allow the defense to show us

[37:08] that we are wrong, we will move forward

[37:11] and help the mayor stay where she's supposed to be

[37:13] because the people voted her in and it is the people's will.

[37:17] But for us to make the determination,

[37:19] were there funds given out?

[37:21] Were all this happening and all of that?

[37:23] I mean, is it factual or not?

[37:25] Let's allow her to show everybody

[37:28] that she is innocent and cleared.

[37:30] So I think we should move forward

[37:32] and allow the, the attorney to present the case so

[37:37] that no doubt is out there for anyone.

[37:40] And we can put a period and move forward.

[37:43] We are literally looked at as a joke.

[37:46] In Spanish, we call that. And it's enough.

[37:50] I really, we are good commissioners.

[37:53] We are a magnificent board and we do this for the people.

[37:56] So it is time that we actually show them

[37:58] that this is their seat.

[38:00] Allow the process to move forward.

[38:02] Allow the defense to do their part.

[38:04] Allow the prosecutor to do her job.

[38:06] We spent thousands of dollars

[38:08] because we said, let's go forth.

[38:11] So let's go forth. Why now?

[38:15] Who's going to reimburse us for all the money

[38:16] that we just spent to get the truth?

[38:19] Let us get the truth. Give the people the truth.

[38:21] That is what's fair. That is what's right. Thank you.

[38:25] That's the end of my comment.

[38:27] - Thank you. You want to make a comment?

[38:29] - Yes. - You're recognized.

[38:32] - Yes. Thank you.

[38:34] I do believe like this process

[38:39] we cannot judge our mayor

[38:42] because never was a guideline here.

[38:47] Just so you know, we don't have

[38:50] the right orientation in part of the decision.

[38:54] We made decisions.

[38:56] When we approve this grant,

[39:01] all of us disapprove about how

[39:05] the money was approved.

[39:09] That was something who was responsibility

[39:12] of the city.

[39:16] - Yeah, but it's the commissioner's responsibility to say,

[39:19] like I do, Form 8B, I have a conflict of interest

[39:22] because Lasandra Roman.

[39:23] So we are responsible for also saying our part.

[39:27] We, we don't know what's in everybody else's head,

[39:29] but again, let the process happen.

[39:32] I think we spent over $25,000.

[39:34] A city attorney, am I correct?

[39:36] - Over - $25,000 of taxpayer money has already been spent.

[39:40] That's not even including the tab for today.

[39:43] So let's just make our money be counted and heard for.

[39:46] If it, if it's a no, I promise you, I promise this,

[39:49] I promise everyone in front of God, if the proof

[39:52] of the burden is accurate,

[39:54] I promise you I'm going to do what's right.

[39:56] Because it's not her fault that if it wasn't right

[39:58] that somebody should have stopped it.

[40:00] But it is my responsibility to tell people

[40:02] or my board how I'm going

[40:04] to act if I know I'm going to act on an item.

[40:07] So I just say, allow us to move forward.

[40:09] Let's make the motion to move forward

[40:11] and let's just put a period to it.

[40:13] Transparency.

[40:14] That's what we said when we knocked on doors, when we went

[40:17] to people and asked them for a vote of confidence.

[40:20] Be transparent. This is our one time out of all of this mess

[40:23] that's happened that we can open the door

[40:25] and say, all right, let's do it.

[40:26] Yes, there's not a clear process. Yes.

[40:29] I was expecting that we were going to have at least a date

[40:32] to know when we're going to move forward.

[40:33] As I was looking through the, the, the code, it said

[40:36] that there was three months.

[40:38] It could be up to three months that this can take.

[40:40] But allow it. Let them prepare, bring their evidence,

[40:42] show their proof, bring their witnesses, whatever it is

[40:44] that they have to do, and put the burden on the right

[40:47] people that made the mistake.

[40:51] - Thank you. How much more is that going to cause this?

[40:59] - It's, it's - Dead.

[41:02] - This improper right now. Object to the form.

[41:05] This is what I'm talking about.

[41:07] The fairness of the law says. Okay, can we.

[41:14] Order. Order. It's out of order right now.

[41:19] No, you're out of order.

[41:25] - Right, right. Right - Now.

[41:27] - Can we stay quiet? There's no public

[41:31] - Comment.

[41:32] Hold on just a minute. I'm recognizing

[41:36] the city attorney right now.

[41:38] - At this point in the process, can you ask for a motion?

[41:42] Yes.

[41:45] - I have a motion to accept the articles of impeachment

[41:50] as presented by the special prosecutor. Don't a motion.

[41:54] - Motion to accept. - Second. All those in favor?

[41:59] - We need to vote. It's okay.

[42:03] This is roll call to accept the articles

[42:05] of impeachment presented by the special prosecutor.

[42:08] Commissioner Alvarez. Commissioner Martinez.

[42:12] - Aye. - Commissioner Ortiz. Commissioner Eady.

[42:21] Two have voted in favor and two have voted opposed.

[42:24] The motion fails for a lack of a majority.

[42:37] - Now we will call for an adjournment to this meeting.

[42:40] - Yes. - Second. All those in favor?

Special Meeting

Transcript