[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?