The School of Unethical Behavior presented by Mary Brandenburg

Click here or on the image above to play this animated political cartoon.

DATE: December 15, 2007 PUBLICATION: Palm Beach Post, The (FL)

EDITION: FINAL SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: 3C

……..The suit also includes a claim under the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, saying Frankel, Briesemeister, former city commissioner Ray Liberti and state Rep. Mary Brandenburg “engaged in a pattern of criminal activity” including “the sale of political influence, approvals, and support relating to development projects and the sale and purchase of real estate.”

The suit claims Brandenburg tried to help Frankel extort a campaign contribution from the group when she told Renaissance officials that a campaign donation would help the group become an “insider” and help with project approval.

Brandenburg, who didn’t return a call early Friday evening, has said she told the group a contribution would generate “goodwill” but that the remark was made innocently. Read this article in its entirety

A nonprofit group that has spent five years trying to get an affordable-housing project built in the north end of town sued the city on Friday, saying Mayor Lois Frankel and redevelopment head Kim Briesemeister made fraudulent claims of support to the group.

Neighborhood Renaissance, formerly known as Northwood Renaissance, says in the suit that Frankel and Briesemeister made phony claims that they would support Village Centre, an affordable housing project planned for 24th Street, so that the group would transfer its options on land down the street where the city wants a mixed-use project built. The group released its options on that land in 2005, but Village Centre still isn’t built.

In June, a city advisory board recommended against giving the group a $900,000 grant for the project.

“Despite Northwood’s good faith efforts to redesign the project and obtain the necessary approvals, the Village Centre project remains mired in a bureaucratic maze and construction has yet to begin,” the suit says.

Neither Frankel nor Briesemeister returned calls Friday afternoon.

Frankel spokesman Chase Scott denied the claims.

“This is about Northwood Renaissance trying to get almost a million dollars from taxpayer funds for their failing real estate project,” he said. “The city has always acted as the guardian of these taxpayer funds. We will continue to do so and will vigorously oppose this lawsuit.”

The suit claims Frankel and Briesemeister turned their backs on the project in favor of a development philosophy that benefits large-scale developers who are generous with campaign contributions.

It says Briesemeister kept changing course, first saying the project would get the grant if a garage were built and then saying it needed to change from rental housing to for-sale units.

Briesemeister has said the delays have been due to poor planning and budgeting on the group’s part.

A real-estate consultant the city hired to review the project said in June he didn’t think the project “even has a chance.”

The suit also includes a claim under the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, saying Frankel, Briesemeister, former city commissioner Ray Liberti and state Rep. Mary Brandenburg “engaged in a pattern of criminal activity” including “the sale of political influence, approvals, and support relating to development projects and the sale and purchase of real estate.”

The suit claims Brandenburg tried to help Frankel extort a campaign contribution from the group when she told Renaissance officials that a campaign donation would help the group become an “insider” and help with project approval.

Brandenburg, who didn’t return a call early Friday evening, has said she told the group a contribution would generate “goodwill” but that the remark was made innocently. Read this article in its entirety

The suit says Liberti sent e-mails to north-end residents about Northwood Renaissance that were “false and slanderous.” He is now serving a federal prison term on unrelated corruption charges.

Terry Fox, the chair of the group’s real estate committee, said Renaissance felt it had no choice but to sue.

“It’s sad that we have to work this hard to get affordable housing,” Fox said. “But we felt this was our last resort.”

~ thomas_collins@pbpost.com

]]> http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=60 http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?p=58 http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?p=58#comments Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:34:22 +0000 admin http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?p=58

What specific goals or priorities would you pursue, if elected?

Some secrets regarding a grand jury report about the city’s pay-to-play politics may soon be revealed.

Seven months after the panel harshly criticized West Palm Beach as a place where developers looking to do business in the city believe they must contribute to officials’ campaigns, entire sections of its investigation report remain sealed. That’s because motions by state Rep. Mary Brandenburg, D-West Palm Beach—keep reading

and possibly Mayor Lois Frankel — to have sections deleted have led state courts to keep even the existence of the efforts an official secret. The motions have been kept off open dockets or filed without names.

But that may be changing.

As a result of The Palm Beach Post’s inquiries to Florida circuit, appellate and Supreme courts, judicial officials have agreed to make the existence of the cases and details about motions available to the public. Still under discussion in the state’s highest court is whether to allow the release of more than anonymous case numbers and to identify in public dockets the names of those seeking to have grand jury reports expunged.

Chief Circuit Judge Kathleen Kroll agreed last week to release case numbers and dockets for three cases that involve protests of the grand jury presentment. Kroll had denied those efforts to alter the report, and the cases have been appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeal, which has permitted no trace of them to appear on its online docket.

In fact, one 4th District Court of Appeal case that was listed on the docket in May was removed about two weeks ago, after that court’s clerk determined it should not be public. That case was filed by Republic Properties Corp., a former city hall construction contractor that objected to a negative reference in the grand jury report.

The existence of a second case, by Brandenburg, is known publicly only because she disclosed it several months ago in an interview, though neither she nor her attorney Don Pickett would discuss the matter further.

Frankel will not comment on whether she filed the third case. The state attorney responded to her criticisms of the grand jury report by calling for a follow-up grand jury investigation.

Florida grand juries are volunteer panels seated to conduct investigations and hear witness testimony, under direction from the state attorney’s office.

While the proceedings are required by law to be kept secret, court clerks around the state differ on whether motions to repress grand jury reports that are filed by people who are not charged must be hidden from public view. The Palm Beach County grand jury, while highly critical of the city’s government, issued no criminal charges.

The Florida statute concerning such motions says that while they are pending, the report “shall not be made public or published.” But Volusia County attorney Jon Kaney, general counsel for the First Amendment Foundation, says that doesn’t mean the existence of the case must be hidden.

“Keeping the docket sealed is neither permitted nor related to the purpose of the statute,” he says. “The statute says only that the presentment must be sealed.”

The nonprofit First Amendment Foundation was founded by the Florida Press Association to protect free speech and open government in the state.

As it happens, Kaney, as an attorney in private practice, is representing the Volusia state attorney in trying to redact a section of a grand jury report, which he contends improperly mentions his client. In that sealed case, before the 5th District Court of Appeal, the docket is public and the state attorney is identified in it.

The clerk for that court, Susan Wright, says her office generally keeps the identity of a grand jury investigation subject secret, but in this case the state attorney’s name had come out in a public hearing, so there was no need to.

Even with secret cases, a case number is placed on the public docket, she said. How would anyone learn about, or know how to find records of such a case, without a name attached to it?

A member of the public couldn’t find the case online, but if someone called the clerk’s office to ask if any appeal had been filed regarding a grand jury report, the clerk would tell them, Wright says.

Tom Hall, clerk of the Florida Supreme Court, last week asked Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis how to handle such sealed cases. No decision has been announced.

Hall said that the public should be able to find out about the existence of such cases via computer, by typing in the words “grand jury” on an appeals court Web site. He said he was surprised to learn that this function did not work for the 4th District’s online docket.

It was a programming glitch that would be corrected in a matter of days by his technicians, who handle the appellate court sites, he said. Other appellate courts around the state did not have that problem, he said.

“It’s just an interesting entity, grand juries,” Kroll said. “I’m hoping we’re going to get some good law out of these appeals.”

~ tony_doris@pbpost.com

DATE: June 7, 2008
PUBLICATION: Palm Beach Post, The (FL) EDITION: FINAL
SECTION: A SECTION PAGE: 1A MEMO: Did not run MSL.

A county grand jury concluded state Rep. Mary Brandenburg “did not act ethically” in July 2006 when she told the members of a neighborhood nonprofit they would have to get out their wallets if they wanted to get things done in West Palm Beach.

Brandenburg told members of the Northwood Renaissance redevelopment group that “the way to successfully conduct business in the city of West Palm Beach was to write substantial checks to the mayor’s campaign account,” ……Keep Reading

the panel concluded. The grand jury noted that “there is no testimo

ny or evidence” that Brandenburg was acting at Mayor Lois Frankel’s direction.

The findings released Friday were a previously sealed portion of the grand jury report originally issued Feb. 2, 2007. Brandenburg, D-West Palm Beach, waged a 16-month battle to keep her name out of the document.

“The grand jury is appalled by Mary Brandenburg’s lack of compassion and concern for the citizens of West Palm Beach,” the report said. “The grand jury applauds the Northwood Renaissance organization and support their continued efforts, and is saddened by the loss of affordable housing opportunities for lower to middle income residents of the city of West Palm Beach.”

Brandenburg said the grand jury’s findings were incorrect, based on inaccurate accusations.

“It’s a cowardly attack by some anonymous person or persons,” Brandenburg said. “Frankly, I think it was shameful behavior on the part of whoever did it. The last page describes me as acting unethically. That is absolutely incorrect, and the grand jurors didn’t think so either or they would have filed an ethics complaint.”

Kaye Sterling, a complaint coordinator at the Florida Commission on Ethics, said the commission would not investigate this matter unless a complaint was made. She declined to say if a complaint had been made, saying investigations are confidential until complete.

Brandenburg said she was shocked to read what was in the report, even though she had fought to keep it sealed. Under the law, any portion of a grand jury report relating to an individual who has not been charged is kept secret until that individual receives a copy and is given 15 days to file motions to repress or expunge any portion believed to be improper or unlawful.

The 4th District Court of Appeal did appear to side with Brandenburg in April, when it ruled some portions of the report should remain sealed. Chief Circuit Judge Kathleen Kroll made those revisions, and released the rest of the document Friday.

The report focused on a meeting Brandenburg - allegedly acting as a member of the city’s ethics committee - had with the nonprofit community development corporation, Northwood Renaissance. The organization wanted to talk about perceived ethics violations by West Palm Beach because it was having trouble getting approvals for a redevelopment project in the Northwood neighborhood.

According to the report, Brandenburg told the group “if Northwood Renaissance wanted to make progress in the political arena of the city of West Palm Beach, they were going to have to play the game the way everybody else did.”

“Mary Brandenburg progressed to how commissioners or elected officials could receive compensation for their votes,” the report said. “Mary Brandenburg discussed the right way and the wrong way to make contributions, giving an example of an inappropriate way to offer money; bribes and bogus consulting agreements with a spouse or elected official.”

Brandenburg said she didn’t say those things, and had not even come to the meeting as a member of the city’s ethics committee, which, she said, was only established to look at ethics among city employees.

“I’m disappointed in the grand jury and the process here and the inability for someone like me to face my accusers,” Brandenburg said.

The report blasted the city for what developers saw as a “pay to play” culture in which campaign contributions are used as political capital coinciding with official city actions on projects.

The report also said Frankel and Brandenburg are friends and that Frankel appointed all members to the committee, including Brandenburg.

The mayor’s office released a statement saying Frankel had no personal knowledge of the meeting between Northwood Renaissance and Brandenburg.

The mayor “cannot comment on the accuracy of conversations between those parties,” the statement said. “If any statements were made implying that votes or special favors could be bought by making a campaign contribution then Mayor Frankel finds such statements unacceptable and repugnant.”

- kelly_wolfe@pbpost.com

]]> http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=46 http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?p=44 http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?p=44#comments Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:02:59 +0000 admin http://jeffauslander.com/blog/?p=44 BYLINE: TONY DORIS, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

DATE: April 22, 2007 PUBLICATION: The Palm Beach Post
EDITION: FINAL SECTION: A SECTION
PAGE: 1A MEMO: Did not run MSL.

For the past two months, a state lawmaker has waged a secret legal battle to keep her name out of a grand jury’s report about “pay to play” city politics.

State Rep. Mary Brandenburg, Read More………

a mayoral appointee, to the city’s ethics task force who testified before the grand jury, has all but run out of motions in Palm Beach County Circuit Court to keep a redacted portion of the report from public view. Chief Circuit Judge Kathleen Kroll could release the sealed findings in as little as 30 days unless Brandenburg challenges the judge’s decision with the 4th District Court of Appeal. Brandenburg, D-West Palm Beach, maintained she wanted to delay its release only to avoid a distraction to her work in Tallahassee during the legislative session, scheduled to end May 4. “I am confident that I will not have any problems with doing anything that was illegal or that breaks any rules of the Florida House,” she said.

Brandenburg said last week that she hadn’t decided whether to appeal Kroll’s decision to release the findings: “I’ve been making decisions about what to do next one step at a time.”

Brandenburg’s motions were filed under seal to protect grand jury secrecy. Other than to confirm she filed them, she would not discuss specifics. Kroll would acknowledge only that motions were filed with her, but would not say who filed them and would not talk about their contents.

Under the law, any portion of a grand jury report relating to an individual who has not been charged is kept secret until the individual has been furnished a copy and given 15 days to file motions to repress or expunge any portion that the individual believes is improper or unlawful. Any such motion, whether granted or denied, automatically seals that portion of a report until the circuit court rules on the motion or until an appeal of that ruling is affirmed or denied.

The grand jury report, released Feb. 2, blasted the city for what developers saw as a “pay to play” culture in which campaign contributions are used as political capital timed to coincide with official city action on projects. Grand jurors focused on Mayor Lois Frankel’s $400,000 in contributions for her reelection campaign, most of them from development interests. Such campaign accounts drown out the voices of small businesses and regular people, their report said.

While the grand jury found no criminal activity, “the contributions were consistent with the perception of the ‘pay to play‘ atmosphere made in the hopes of receiving favorable consideration,” the report said.

The sealed portion elaborates on a section subtitled “Mayor’s Ethics Committee,” concerning a panel handpicked by Frankel. “Based on the credible evidence and credible testimony before it, this grand jury concludes that one member of the ethics committee acted unethically while conducting ethics committee business,” the section states. Details, it continued, were contained in the section still under seal.

After the grand jury report was released, it was widely speculated that Brandenburg was named in the sealed section. For months, Brandenburg had avoided questions about her inclusion in the report.

Questions about her advice

Brandenburg, 57, was elected to the Florida House in 2002, eight months after she lost reelection as a city commissioner to Kimberly Mitchell. She remains on the city’s 10-member ethics panel, which was formed by the mayor last summer to restore public confidence in city government after City Commissioner Ray Liberti resigned amid a federal corruption probe.

What little was known about Brandenburg’s involvement with the grand jury came from the legislator herself, shortly after she testified before the grand jury in January. At the time, she said she was quizzed about advice she had given to Carl Flick, head of a nonprofit company having trouble getting city approvals for a redevelopment project in the city’s Northwood neighborhood.

Brandenburg said she told Flick in July that he needed to try to generate “goodwill” — and that “one way he could do it was to donate campaign contributions to anybody who was running in March,” Brandenburg said. That included Frankel and Commissioners Ike Robinson and Jeri Muoio, who all won.

“I’m a politician, and we politicians notice who gives campaign contributions and are inclined to think benevolently of those people,” she said in a January interview.

Recent interviews with Brandenburg, Flick and three of Flick’s business associates revealed that the legislator was under far more scrutiny than previously known.

Brandenburg said last week that the grand jury had subpoenaed phone records and e-mails from her state office in addition to seeking testimony from her two aides. The subpoenaed documents included an Oct. 6 e-mail from Brandenburg to an aide, directing her to set up a meeting with Flick and the mayor. The e-mail was written three days after the grand jury was seated and 11 days before Flick and his associates were to testify.

“The meeting is for Lois, Carl and me, and no one else,” Brandenburg wrote. “I don’t want a crowd.”

‘Shockingly unethical’ talk

That meeting never took place. But at the July 12 meeting, Brandenburg was much more pointed in her recommendation that they make campaign contributions to Frankel, according to Flick and his associates in the nonprofit, Northwood Renaissance.

Donna Brosemer, a Northwood Renaissance lobbyist, said she found the recommendation “shockingly unethical.”

“I’ve worked in political campaigns for 15 years,” Brosemer said. “I’ve heard lots of requests for political contributions. But I’ve never heard a conversation like the one we were in.”

In separate interviews, Flick, Brosemer, Northwood Renaissance board member Terry Fox and Executive Director Terri Murray said Brandenburg was invited to meet with them after they learned she had been picked for the city’s ethics task force. They said they hoped the panel would address city problems they faced while seeking approvals for their Village Center mixed-use development.

All four said Brandenburg dismissed their concerns. Instead, they said, she advised them to make a “significant” contribution to the mayor’s reelection campaign. If they didn’t, she suggested they might as well sell the Village Center site because they never would get project approvals from the city, Fox and Murray said.

Brandenburg, the group said, offered to set up a meeting with Frankel and Flick to repair the group’s rocky relationship with city hall. “We were an outsider and we needed to be an insider; those were the key words,” Fox said.

In an interview Monday, Brandenburg said she was “flabbergasted” by the group’s account. “I went up to their offices as a response to a request for advice to someone outside my district, out of the goodness of my heart,” she said. “No good deed goes unpunished.”

Brandenburg and the group agree that no meeting between Flick and the mayor ever took place. Brandenburg says she didn’t reach out again to Flick until Oct. 6, when she sent the e-mail instructing aide Nicole Williams to call him and schedule the meeting contemplated in July.

By the time Flick got the call, the grand jury investigation was gathering steam, with Flick and his colleagues scheduled to testify Oct. 17. The e-mail was written on the same day The Palm Beach Post quoted City Attorney Claudia McKenna as saying the grand jury was “looking at whether you have to pay to play.” McKenna made that comment after speaking with State Attorney Barry Krischer and shortly before she testified to the grand jury.

Brandenburg said she didn’t know why she waited so long to contact Flick, but maintained the news story had nothing to do with it. She said she first asked her aide to make the call a few days earlier and was only following up in the Oct. 6 e-mail.

Flick said he called state attorney’s office investigator Mike Waites after receiving the phone message from Brandenburg’s aide.

“You need to avoid talking to Mary, because she could then be charged with witness tampering,” Flick quoted Waites as telling him. “She should not be talking to you. You’re now a witness to this whole thing.”

Waites declined comment.

Brandenburg said she had no idea Flick or the others were about to testify. She said she wanted the meeting limited to three people because Flick thought the mayor had a grudge against him, so Brandenburg wanted “to hold his hand” through the meeting. Having him show up with other board members would have lengthened the meeting, she said.

Frankel confirmed Wednesday that Brandenburg had told her at some point that Flick wanted to meet, and that the mayor agreed to it.

But the mayor added, “Mary Brandenburg was never asked to solicit contributions for me.”

Frankel described Brandenburg as a political colleague but not a close friend. She never asked Brandenburg to pressure Northwood Renaissance to sell its property, Frankel added, saying she could not believe Brandenburg would do such a thing.

“I’d be so shocked,” Frankel said, “I’d fall off my chair.”

~ tony_doris@pbpost.com

Despite the end of the legislative session and mayoral race, state Rep. Mary Brandenburg and at least one other person mentioned in a sealed grand jury report on “pay to play” city politics are pursuing legal efforts to keep the sections referring to them secret. Read More…….

Chief Circuit Judge Kathleen Kroll on Monday received a new motion to repress or expunge a section of the report. Also, a person she would not identify has asked that a circuit court case file number be assigned in order to appeal an earlier order by Kroll unsealing the report, she said. It is unclear whether the same person made both the motion and the request for a file number. Brandenburg’s lawyer said he did not request the file number.

Because of state grand jury secrecy rules, the judge declined to comment in detail or to say who filed which motions or appeals.

Brandenburg, D-West Palm Beach, has acknowledged a monthslong battle to keep her name out of the report, which was issued Feb. 2. In April, she said she wanted to at least delay its release while she was in Tallahassee during the legislative session.

The session ended May 4, but she and her attorney, Don Pickett, confirmed that they have not dropped the effort and are awaiting a decision from Kroll.

The grand jury report blasted the city for what developers saw as a “pay to play” culture in which campaign contributions are used as political capital coinciding with official city action on projects. Grand jurors focused on Mayor Lois Frankel’s $400,000 in contributions for her reelection campaign, most of them from development interests. One unnamed developer, protected by immunity from prosecution, said he had gathered contributions to Frankel from employees and then reimbursed them. Such reimbursements are illegal because they serve to evade campaign contribution limits set for individuals and companies.

The report became fodder for opponent Al Zucaro’s mayoral campaign, but Frankel was reelected in March with 59 percent of the vote.

A second grand jury is looking further into the issues raised by the first.

Frankel declined to comment on efforts to suppress the report.

Brandenburg’s attorney, Pickett, said it would be illegal for him or the lawmaker to comment while the matter is under court consideration.

Under the law, any portion of a grand jury report relating to an individual who has not been charged is kept secret until that individual receives a copy and is given 15 days to file motions to repress or expunge any portion believed to be improper or unlawful. Such a filing automatically seals that portion of a report until the circuit court rules or an appeal is concluded.

The sealed portion of the Feb. 2 report elaborated on a section subtitled “Mayor’s Ethics Committee.” Brandenburg, a former city commissioner, is one of 10 members of the panel, picked by Frankel, to recommend improvements to the city’s ethics policies.

“Based on the credible evidence and credible testimony before it, this grand jury concludes that one member of the ethics committee acted unethically while conducting ethics committee business,” the section stated. The details are contained in the portion still under seal.

The grand jury quizzed Brandenburg about conversations she had with leaders of a nonprofit that was having trouble getting city approvals for a redevelopment project in the city’s Northwood Neighborhood. The group, led by Carl Flick, said the ethics panelist pressured them to contribute to Frankel’s campaign in order to get approvals. Brandenburg said she merely suggested they could build political “goodwill” by contributing.

~tony_doris@pbpost.com

Excerpts from
“Individual Unethical Behavior within the City of West Palm Beach Ethics Committee”

In July 2006, after her appointment to the Ethics Committee, Mary Brandenburg met with Northwood Renaissance…….she made it very clear that if Northwood Renaissance wanted to make progress in the political arena, they were going to have to play the game the way everyone else did.

…Mary Brandenburg progressed to how commissioners or elected officials could receive compensation for their votes.

Mary Brandenburg discussed the right way and the wrong way to make contributions, giving an example of an inappropriate way to offer money, bribes and bogus consulting agreements with a spouse of the elected official.

Mary Brandenburg did not act ethically in her position as an Ethics Committee member … Her goal was clear and concise: Deliver a message to the Northwood Renaissance organization. Act like all the other developers. “Pay to Play” … financial contributions will make you an insider and get you votes and support.

The Grand Jury is appalled by Mary Brandenburg’s lack of compassion and concern for the citizens of West Palm Beach. This Grand Jury is saddened by the loss of affordable housing opportunities for lower to middle income residents of the city of West Palm Beach.

Mary Brandenburg met with volunteer members of a non-profit organization and instructed that the way to successfully conduct business in the City of West Palm Beach was to write substantial checks to the Mayor’s campaign account.

Click here to download a PDF of the complete Grand Jury Report

IN RE: THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF
THE CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY BY
THE STATE OF FLORIDA

The Grand Jury Presentment on the City of West Palm Beach

Part A

“Pay to Play” Introduction

After irregular and illegal practices surfaced regarding Republic Properties and the West Palm Beach City Center project₁, this Grand Jury was convened to investigate corruption, ethics and whether the City of West Palm Beach conducts business under a “pay to play” practice. Witnesses who testified included residents, the mayor, elected city officials, former and present city employees, commissioners, vendors, developers and businesses who have conducted business with or within the city.

In addition to witness testimony, the Grand Jury received and reviewed documents, correspondence, emails and other evidence.

_{1 Republic Properties Corporation, a real estate development company, paid consulting fees to then City Commissioner Ray Liberti in relation to the City Center project. The City Center project is the construction of a civic complex that will house City Hall, the public library, and a non-profit cultural and educational institute in downtown West Palm Beach.}

Pay to play

One of the questions addressed by this Grand Jury is: Is the City of West Palm Beach a “pay to play” city? The question posed in another way: Is it the understanding among developers and businesses that in order to successfully conduct business with the City of West Palm Beach, the developers and businesses must make large financial contributions or other considerations?
The evidence is as follows:

Campaign contributions

Developers and businesses perceive that the City of West Palm Beach is in fact a “pay to play” city. Developers take actions consistent with this conclusion, including the contribution of substantial sums of money to the campaign account of Mayor Lois Frankel. Contributions are made at times significant to approval of or consideration of projects or matters before various boards and the City Commission in West Palm Beach. Campaign contributions in increments of $500.00 were made by wealthy large scale developers to the political campaign account of Mayor Lois Frankel. These contributions came from individuals, companies, and legal entities which were found to be connected to the developers. The total campaign contributions connected to a given developer varied from $5,000 to $21,000. Here are some examples:

Rendina: On June 14, 2005 28 checks attributed to developer Bruce Rendina totaled $14,000.00; On June 15, 2005 an additional 12 checks totaling $6,000.00 were connected to Bruce Rendina. Checks on various other dates brought the total to more than $21,000.00.

Huizenga: On June 21, 2005, the West Palm Beach City Commission voted and approved future land use amendments and rezoning which increased allowed density and height (in planning board case number 1445 and 1445A). This action largely increased the value of certain property owned by developer Huizenga; On June 25, 2005, twenty $500.00 checks associated with Huizenga were deposited into Mayor Frankel’s campaign account, totaling $10,000.00.

Rincon Properties LLC: This landowner donated $5,000, all of which can be directly attributed to the one landowner. Amounts included one donation by a corporation and another by the same corporation under a fictitious name. This means one company donated $1,000.00, twice the legal limit. If an eight-story development goes up on Flagler Drive near this property, the landowner stands to make $50 million, as the value of the property is estimated to increase by that amount.

Kenco City Center Development: Kenco was a loser in the City Center project, apparently concluding in the process that West Palm Beach is a “pay to play” city. In connection with its next project, Kenco made $10,000 in political contributions₂. On June 30, 2005, twenty checks from Kenco and other entities associated with Kenco were contributed to Mayor Lois Frankel’s campaign account totaling $10,000. This was approximately one month before the company was to go before the Plans and Plats Review Committee, a preliminary process for Commission approval of a development. The reasonable conclusion is that this large contribution was made to insure the success of the subsequent project. Such actions are consistent with an acquired understanding of the “pay to play” perception by developers.

Cypress Realty Group: This developer made a $5,000.00 political contribution to the mayor’s campaign account late in 2006. These contributions were collected from family, employees and employees’ spouses. Cypress Realty received administrative staff approval regarding North Olive Place in December 2006 which was a critical deadline. If approval had not been received by December 31, 2006, the entire project would have been subject to a new and unknown city master plan. (Refer to the Chamber of Commerce section for more financial contribution information of this company.) The timing of these financial contributions occurred in conjunction with the developers’ presentation of projects to the city, the City Commission and the mayor at various stages of the approval process. Some contributions were made in anticipation of submission of development projects. Some contributions occurred within days of votes before the Commission, or on the same day that the City Commission voted. Others were made while decisions, approval, or votes were pending on development projects.

_{2 Testimony revealed that this contribution totaled $15,000.00. Only $10,000.00 of the contribution was located in the campaign contribution reports reviewed during the course of this Grand Jury term.}

The evidence established that these contributions were bundled in several ways:

1. Where a large developer owns many companies (one controlled 131 companies), each individual, legally distinct company made a $500.00 contribution. Additionally, contributions were made by family members and friends of the developer.

2. A developer asked friends, family, employees, and spouses of employees to make individual $500 political contributions to Mayor Lois Frankel. These contributions were then reimbursed by the developer to the individual parties who made the contributions.

3. Developers made substantial contributions to the Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches. These contributions were used for various purposes to aid the mayor and the city financially, and to gain favor with the mayor and Commissioners. This type of contribution will be discussed thoroughly in a separate section of this report.

Review of campaign contribution report

One observation of the campaign contribution reports showed that a large percentage of contributions came from developers, businesses, and individuals from outside Palm Beach County and the State of Florida. Why would someone who is not a resident of West Palm Beach, or a developer or business entity that is not based in the city of West Palm Beach, make such substantial contributions? This Grand Jury concludes the obvious; the contributions were consistent with the perception of the “pay to play” atmosphere made in the hopes of receiving favorable consideration. This Grand Jury uncovered no evidence of any “quid pro quo” connecting the Mayor with any political contribution during its investigation.

Chamber of Commerce
Factual Basis

The Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches is a non profit corporation. The Chamber of Commerce accepted checks or contributions from developers and businesses which were designated by the donor to be used for the “referendum campaign” and to oppose the lawsuit filed by West Palm Beach residents against the City Center project. One $5,000.00 contribution was made by Cypress Realty Group on June 21, 2006 for the specific purpose of opposing the lawsuit filed by the residents of West Palm Beach. Additional contributions were in increments of $5, 000.00 and $10,000.00. The Grand Jury discovered contributions for this purpose in the total amount of $30,000.00 for the year 2006. These contributions were deposited in the Chamber of Commerce operating expense account and then paid out through that account according to the directions of the developer.

Developers used the Chamber of Commerce and its operating account as a conduit for receipt of funds and payments used to fight the citizens initiative. The Grand Jury poses the question: Why was this money sent to the Chamber of Commerce? This question was not adequately explained to the Grand Jury. The use of the Chamber of Commerce’s operating account disguised the initiative of the wealthy developers, the source of the contributions, and the existence of the payments. It would be difficult for the public to become aware of this practice.

Conclusions

Campaign contributions

The ability to bundle these campaign contributions enabled the wealthy, large scale developer to make significant financial contributions. These amounts, although they ran into thousands of dollars, are small compared to the large profits to be made, and are easily considered a “cost of doing business.” When a developer stands to make millions of dollars on a project by acquiring the necessary permits and variances and votes, contributions of $10,000 or even $25,000 are insignificant to the developer, but not the recipient. Regulating political campaign contributions is intended to prevent the illegal purchase of a bias or favor from elected officials. When loopholes are exploited, and the regulated system is misused and abused, the political contribution process becomes questionable. When contributions are bundled, the playing field is not level. Clearly, the large and powerful developer can out-contribute any small business. The large and powerful developer can purchase the votes needed for the permits and variances, unlike the smaller business that cannot compete. Laws are circumvented. This political campaign process must be reevaluated by the voters and the State legislature to address the issue of “attribution” of the contributions. This loophole must be addressed. Developers should not be permitted to bundle contributions, thereby gaining undue influence, unfair access and favoritism that is not available to the average citizen or smaller business. Developers should not be permitted to circumvent the clear intent of the law. A limit should be placed on the amount that is attributed to one individual or one entity.

Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches

The Chamber of Commerce is perceived to represent all of its business members. Acting as a conduit for substantial amounts of money from large developers gives the perception that the Chamber has come to represent the wishes of the developers. This organization should disclose when it is paying out substantial amounts of money which had been contributed by developers for a particular purpose.

Ethics

Question: Is the City of West Palm Beach acting in an ethical manner in its business process?

Question: Are there problems with the Mayor’s Ethics Committee?

Factual Basis

The evidence established the following:

Staff

Employees of the City of West Palm Beach have acted unethically by targeting residents, causing inconvenience, financial losses, and loss of property. One such example is a pastor targeted because of development interests in his properties, including a church at 5312 Broadway. He was harassed, given multiple fines, and given misleading and inconsistent information by city employees. The harassment continued despite his good faith attempts to correct any perceived deficiencies. He presented 13 proposals for improvements and was denied 13 times for various reasons. His attempts to address the unethical treatment by the City were futile. He could not get a fair speedy review of the issues and problems facing him from the City. He was without an advocate or a remedy.

Finally, the grand jury heard testimony concerning recourse for city hall employees who have issues about unethical conduct observed or unethical treatment of the employees. No avenue exists for swift independent review of such issues for the city employees themselves.

Conclusions:

The City of West Palm Beach must implement an independent process by which residents, businessmen and women, and City employees can swiftly receive an unbiased, fair review of any unethical conduct or treatment at the hands of the City.

1. What is meant by independent? An individual or committee with no association with the City or the Mayor should be in place to review complaints. This reviewer must not be appointed or chosen by the City or Mayor, or answer to the City or the Mayor, or be subordinate to the City or the Mayor.

2. What is meant by swift review? A review must happen immediately; before more unethical conduct continues; before a resident incurs financial losses, fines, or loss of property; before more injury is inflicted. Delays in evaluation of the situation work against the individual, resident, or business suffering the breach of public trust. Fines accumulate quickly and injure the individual and smaller business. Injuries can be ongoing while review is pending.

Mayor’s Ethics Committee

Factual Basis

In July of 2006 Mayor Lois Frankel empanelled a City of West Palm Beach Ethics Committee, the members of which were handpicked by Mayor Lois Frankel. This blue ribbon panel is comprised of influential, powerful individuals. No average citizens/ residents of West Palm Beach are included. No entity or person who is independent of the mayor is involved in this committee. The committee functions within the structure of the City of West Palm Beach and serves at the pleasure of the mayor. If this panel is to serve as the guardian of the ethical standards of conduct for the mayor and the staff of the City of West Palm Beach, some issues of independence and individual ethical conduct must be addressed.

Based on the credible evidence and credible testimony before it, this Grand Jury concludes that one member of the Ethics Committee acted unethically while conducting Ethics Committee business. The factual basis and resulting conclusions are detailed in Part B of this report.

Conclusions

1. In order for the Ethics Committee to be effective, the members themselves must first exhibit ethical behavior in their role as the City’s ethics monitors.

2. Secondly, the members of the committee should be chosen by a process that is independent of the mayor. The City of West Palm Beach Ethics Committee and its members must be objective and unbiased.

3. The Grand Jury recognizes that a public office and the functioning of that office involve a public trust. The residents have the right of review to guard against the abuse of public trust. For any City of West Palm Beach Ethics Committee to function and accomplish an unbiased ethical result, that committee must act and function independently of the governing body.

—– BEGIN REDACTED PART B ——

Objections were raised by City staff as to the content of this section. This section is to be released in approximately 15 days, after a judge reviews the objections and determines if they have merit for permanent removal.

—– END REDACTED PART B ——

Strong mayor form of government

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Under the strong mayor format of government, there are virtually no checks and balances to the mayor’s power. There is no independent recourse to address grievances under this form of government. This Grand Jury recognizes that the City Commissioners have a responsibility to speak in a strong voice when representing their views. Commissioners simply agreeing with the strong mayor, rather than standing up for their constituents’ best interests, do a disservice to the City and its residents. The issue of a strong mayor is for the resident voters to address. The residents must evaluate this form of government to determine if this format still supports the best interests of the citizens of the City of West Palm Beach and the City itself. This Grand Jury understands that such a change would be accomplished through referendum.

It is the recommendation of this Grand Jury that this report be furnished to the following:

Governor Charlie Crist
Ken Pruitt, Senate President
Marco Rubio, Speaker of the House
House Committee on Ethics & Elections in care of Chair Pat Patterson
Senate Committee on Ethics & Elections in care of Chair Lee Constantine
Philip Claypool, Executive Director and General Counsel, Florida Commission on Ethics
Chris Anderson, Legal Counsel, Florida Commission on Ethics
Chance Irvine, Chair, Florida Elections Commission
Commissioner Isaac Robinson
Commissioner Kimberly Mitchell
Commissioner Jeri Muoio
Commissioner William Moss
City Attorney Claudia McKenna
Northwood Renaissance in care of Mr. Carl Flick
Ethics Committee in care of Chair Keith James
Ms. Wendy Sartory Link, Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches
State Representative Mary Brandenburg; and
Mayor Lois Frankel
The Grand Jury respectfully submits this unanimous report this 31st day of January, 2007.

_________________________________
FOREPERSON OF THE GRAND JURY
_________________________________
MARY ANN DUGGAN
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

END

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Friday, June 13, 2008

A grand jury report that accused Democratic state Rep. Mary Brandenburg of encouraging “pay-to-play” campaign contributions in West Palm Beach has motivated a Republican to open a campaign against her.

Jeff Auslander, an economic development consultant who lives in Lake Worth, said he decided to run after the release last week of a county grand jury report that said Brandenburg, a friend of West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel, “did not act ethically” when she told a neighborhood leader in 2006 that making campaign contributions would help improve relations with city officials.

“The pay-to-play attitude in this county has got to be purged,” said Auslander.

Brandenburg called the grand jury’s findings “uninformed and irresponsible” and said she did nothing wrong.

A former West Palm Beach city commissioner, Brandenburg has been elected three times to the state House in a district that is 45.4 percent Democratic and 27.9 percent Republican.

Attorney Thomas Schmitt opened a Democratic campaign against Brandenburg this year, but recently announced his withdrawal from the race and support for Brandenburg. Schmitt reiterated his support this week after the release of the grand jury report.

Brandenburg fought a 16-month court battle to keep the grand jury report sealed because she said she wanted to correct inaccuracies in it. She said the grand jury relied on “a cowardly attack by some anonymous person or persons.”

The grand jury was convened to investigate corruption in West Palm Beach. While finding a “pay-to-play” culture in which campaign contributions help get things done with city officials, the report did not lead to any charges.

The controversy involving Brandenburg stems from a meeting she had in 2006 with Carl Flick of Northwood Renaissance. Brandenburg said she discussed several ways Flick could improve relations with the city, including talking with officials and stopping critical e-mails. She said she also suggested that campaign contributions would generate “goodwill.”

The grand jury concluded that Brandenburg “did not act ethically” and was telling Flick that “the way to successfully conduct business in the city of West Palm Beach was to write substantial checks to the mayor’s campaign account.”

The grand jury found no evidence that Brandenburg acted with Frankel’s knowledge.