CRESPOGRAM REPORT
JULY 15, 2015
BARRED FROM NUMEROUS GOVERNMENTAL COMPUTER NETWORKS FOR TELLING THE TRUTH
WHAT DO THE THE ETHICS COMMISSION 
AND CORRUPT DICTATORSHIPS HAVE IN COMMON?
WHEN IT COMES TO BAD NEWS, THEY DO THEIR BEST TO IGNORE IT 
PART III

Before we get to the subject at hand, which is how the Ethics Commission decided not to include any information on the Trump/Gimenez bamboozling that were Part I and II of this series in their summary of the July 8th meeting, allow me to point out the following item that I discovered in the minutes of the June 2015 Ethics Commission.

Yes, that’s right, at the very same meeting where Michael Murawski, lied, misled and all around bamboozled the members of the Commission regarding my ethics complaints against Donald Trump, Ed Russo and Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez, the Ethics Commission’s Executive Director Joe “Let’em Go” Centorino, recommend that based on Murawski’s performance during the previous year, he deserved a 4.3% salary increase.


While it will be interesting to see what kind of evaluation Murawski gets from Centorino next year, I want to direct you to the portion of the above item that identifies Commissioner Narine as being both the maker and the person who seconded the motion.


Even 5th graders know that the maker of a motion can’t be the same person who second’s the motion, so obviously either the motion and the second to pass this salary increase were done illegally, or this represents a mistake in the minutes.


This is important because if you watched my comments to the Commission in PART II, and if you listen Commissioner Narine in the video below where she says at :57 seconds into the video that:


                    “I read everything that’s put in front of me.”


You’ll ask why she or anyone else didn’t spot that mistake and ask for it to be corrected before the minutes received final approval.  How much more proof is required to support my claim that when it comes to paying attention, the Ethics Commission doesn’t bother to read “what’s put in front of them.”


WHEN THE SUMMARY DOESN’T SUMMARIZE


Below is the agenda of last week’s Commission Meeting.  I have highlighted Section V, which identified my complaint against Ed Russo, and the Letter Of Instruction that the Commission voted to issue at the June meeting.


The item was on the agenda so that the Commission could review the draft letter before it was put on the Commission’s stationary and sent to Mr. Russo.

Here is the video portion of the discussion that the members had on C-15-05. The discussion went on for 5 minutes, and at the conclusion the item was tabled until the next meeting.

Here is the Summary of the meeting posted by the Ethics Commission on its website on Monday, July 13th. I have highlighted the portion of the summary that dealt with the morning portion of the meeting where you would expect to find some mention of the Letter Of Instruction to Ed Russo was discussed.  See if you can find any mention of C-15-05 in the summary.

Some time between now and the next meeting of the Commission they will a more comprehensive set of minutes, and it will be interesting to see just how much information is included in these minutes of what transpired at last week’s meeting.


Unfortunately the Summary of the meeting is the first document that folks who are interested in the activities of the Commission can read, and often the first is often the only version that they bother to read.


LAWRENCE SCHWARTZ WALKS OUT


For those of you who watched the video, I’m sure you saw retired Judge Lawrence Schwartz get up and walk out when the Letter of Instruction related to my C-145-05 complaint was introduced.


After his tirade that he would never take part in any hearing having to do with a complaint that I filed, a 5 minute recess was called and behind closed doors he was persuaded to return, but, true to his word, when the Letter Of Instruction was introduced, he walked out without any explanation.


I’m sure that if asked, he’ll probably claim that he had a sudden need to go to the bathroom, because if he purposely walked out  so as evade voting on this item it would represent a reprehensible dereliction of his responsibility as a member of a public board to conduct himself in a manner reflecting the public trust he accepted when he agreed to become a member of the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust.


It’s Miami, Bitches!


ARCHIVESSPLASH_PAGE.html