Don Urquhart’s Response to Comm. Ritter

Fellow Coalition members,

I have to begin by thanking Charlotte for helping to keep us so well informed about important issues.  I read Mayor Ritter’s comments with a bit of astonishment and was compelled to respond.  I apologize at the outset for the length of my response but a matter of this complexity and nature needs to be explored before it can be neatly summarized.  
Mayor Ritter’s comments are at once comforting and troubling.  They are comforting in that the Mayor has abandoned all pretense of concern for the common interest.  They are troubling because she remains in elective office with a political philosophy that is unambiguously informed by self interest.  

With the electorate suffering from historical economic challenges, the stench of corruption and scandal enveloping many of Broward County’s major institutions and allegations of inappropriate special interest influence dogging the Mayor and her husband, one would think that the Mayor would be leading the calls for a healthy dose of the disinfectant of sunlight – for independent reviews and comprehensive oversight to demonstrate that there is nothing to hide so that seriously eroded voter confidence can be restored.  One would think.  Regrettably, Mayor Ritter has responded to voter calls for review and reform with contempt, scorn and ridicule.

Mayor Ritter has had remarkably little to say about the specific allegations yet suffers no loss of words when it comes to dissuading committee members, dismissing arguments for reform and discrediting those who disagree.  Of the more than 2,200 words she offered, 4% (no fewer than 80 words) were I and I’m while just 34 words were devoted to token acknowledgment of the obligation of elected officials:

I do not mean to diminish the offense. It was horrendous and no elected official should ever betray the public confidence . . .  
. . . and we all want to make sure that our elected officials are trustworthy . . .

The remaining comments are devoted to denying the allegations, demanding more proof, rationalizing the status quo and vilifying those who have dissenting views or call for reforms. 

Her words are instructive:

On the work of the Ethics Committee:
I . . .  have been quite frankly disturbed at some of the comments that have been coming from this Committee and feel there are some assumptions that have been made here that are, quite frankly, wrong. I have seen it in other Commissions and Committees where you are asked to do things and you may not know exactly what the Commission does, so you are asking for changes to stuff that you're really not sure what we do. I’ve see [sic] it with the Management and Efficiency Study Committee . . . There are lots of decisions and conversations being said about things we already do, that people don't know we do . . . And there is not a whole lot of knowledge of the process, and I found that true in some of the comments that have come from this Commission.

All you seem to care about is one of us is going to jail for something that had nothing to do with what he did here at the county . . .

Just having received your draft, which is skeletal, it's going to be hard for me to make any comments on that specifically, but I'm concerned that there appears to be a perception from this group that the County Commission is full of corrupt elected officials who want nothing better than to line their pockets . .  .

On official misconduct and the need for reform:

And I was most disturbed by my colleague Commissioner Wexler's comments as it relates [sic] to procurement, and what she perceives to be an issue, which I quite frankly don't see.. . .

 since I have been on the Commission, in November 2006, one County Commissioner who has pled guilty to an offense that had nothing to do with his office and has been charged with an offense that has something to do with land use, not procurement, yet you have chosen to focus on procurement . . .

I think that your Inspector General local bill has some problems with it. You are allowing somebody who basically does what the auditor does . . .  I don't think the county needs an Inspector General and an auditor to overlap each other . . .

It's funny you want the Legislature to meddle in this, . . . the Legislature shouldn't meddle in county business. They should take care of their own house and let the County Commission take care of its own house . . . I don't think the Legislature should meddle.

I think that there are, by the way, Legislatures [sic] who have been accused of things. Legislatures [sic] who have gone to jail, but I don't see you talking about them. There are Legislatures [sic] who actually work for businesses that have business in front of the Legislature, and vote on their issues, but I don't see you talk about their conflicts. I don't see you talk about the conflicts in Congress.

You might want to broaden your local bill and say you know, it applies it [sic] Legislatures too, and it applies to municipal officials and it applies to the School Board and it applies to the Hospital District Commissioners and it applies to every Water Control Board supervisor in this county, to every single special district supervisor in this county, which there are 97, because quite frankly to single out the County Commissioner for something is wrong. If you want to talk about elected officials and corruption, let's talk about elected officials and corruption, but to paint us all on this County Commission with a broad brush, when I have seen members do nothing illegal or unethical –have seen members do things for their own reasons, which I may not agree with, but they are elected to do that

On the efficacy of transparency, accountability and reform:
If you want to . . . I'm not sure you could ever make 100 percent of the public believe that that is true. Those people who think we're dirty will always think we're dirty, no matter what we do or say, and those people who think we aren't will always think that.

On the primacy of politics over ethics, process and transparency:
If I'm sitting in a selection committee and I think company A is the best company, but company B is the stiffest competition, I may well choose to rank company B lower because I think company A should win. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing illegal or unethical in that, and if you want to know the reasons why we vote, all you have to do is ask us. Sometimes you will get the right answer and sometimes you will get the couched answer, but that is politics [emphasis added].  I don't think the selection committee is broken.
 
On proposed reforms:
. . . you're going to allow an Inspector General to investigate anonymous complaints. Now as someone who has been the subject of anonymous attackers on the web, I can tell you that is really harmful. I believe also I have a constitutional amendment [sic] to confront my accuser. Now with an anonymous complaint, I lose that. How can you do that? How can you not let me, if I'm accused of something, defend myself to the person who is the accuser. I could go on. I have lots of notes and tabs.

On voter appeals to government:
I notice that last week you had Charlotte Greenbar [sic] come to speak to you. She notoriously hates the County Commission . She notoriously hates the School Board. She made some comments about School Board members shouldn't sit on selection committees either, but I don't see anybody talking about that either . . .

On lobbyist (special interest) appeals to government:
I think that perception of lobbyists is also misunderstood. And lobbyists purvey the system anyway. Politics and lobbyists, just like politics and sex sort of go hand-in-hand, sometimes in my house they are one and the same . . .
It happens. It's not always the fact that the lobbyist client wins, but it is sometimes the fact. That is just true in life. Lawyers represent clients. We want our clients to win, just like the lobbyists want our clients to win . . .

On the role of staff in the process:
Commissioner Wexler talked about intimidation of staff. The County Commission doesn't hire and fire staff, so they shouldn't be intimidated by us because we're not their bosses. The County Administrator is their bosses [sic]. And if they have issues with the County Administrator , they should take it up with her, not with us because we don't hire and fire the people that are sitting at the table with you.

. . . but I think if you are moving towards a, Miami Dade system, which is what looks like is happening, is a big mistake. The last major project in Broward County was the rental car center at the airport. Before my time, Commissioners sat on the selection committee. It came in under budget and on time. The last major project in Miami Dade was the airport, which came in a billion dollars over budget and did not come in on time, and the only people that you can complain to are the staff, not the elected officials, and I mean no disrespect to the staff, but the staff controlled the process in Miami Dade and staff spoke to the staff, not to the elected officials.
 
So at the end of the day, if you are looking for accountability and transparency, in my opinion, and with all due respect to this Committee and the intelligence of this Committee, I think you're heading down the wrong path. You will not find accountability or transparency if you hand this over to the non-elected officials.
 
On the structure of Broward County government:
. . . the Legislature doesn't sit as the executive branch, which the County Commission does. The Legislature doesn't sit as the judicial branch, which the County Commission sometimes does, and we always sit as the Legislative branch.
Founding father James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution” and “Father of the Bill of Rights,” and the author of more than one third of the Federalist Papers was a student of human nature and governance who knew more about both than most.  Madison argued compellingly for the need for the separation of powers.  His most famous admonition, now a fundamental tenet of our system of governance, is as true today as it was when he wrote it in 1788:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government . . . the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

If Mayor Ritter, an attorney by education, ever read the Federalist Papers, her comments suggest that she has either forgotten or disagrees with them.  She boasts of an inherently inimical consolidation of powers within the County Commission and essentially urges us to supplant Madison’s doctrine with a simple 'Trust me! I haven’t yielded to temptation; take my word for it.'

Commissioners are not acolytes of a higher God.  The Commission is not some mystical agency that dispenses divine wisdom like the Oracle at Delphi; it is a representative body that does the business of the people.  Its activities should be transparent and easily understood.  To the degree that they are not, that is a failure of leadership.
 
The Mayor’s suggestion that the Commission should not be subject to reforms unless and until reforms are imposed on ever other entity is not only a classic example of parliamentary paralysis, it stands in sharp contrast with her assertion: ". . . I like to lead by example . . ." Leading by example would be proactively enacting reforms and internal controls to eliminate opportunities for mischief and the appearance of impropriety rather than waiting for others to do so.
The Mayor views reforms entirely within the context of their implications for her individually rather than their potential benefit to the public.  Not once does she align her recommendations with the interests of the electorate. Notwithstanding the fact that investigations gather facts rather than decide facts, the Mayor has a strong aversion to review by an Inspector General; her seemingly visceral aversion begs the question: what does she have to hide?  

As for the competence, efficacy and appropriate role of staff, the Mayor’s position is not entirely clear.   The argument that staff is completely insulated from and indifferent to the desires of elected officials is simply not persuasive; neither is the suggestion that a staff-controlled selection process and transparency and accountability are mutually exclusive. 
Remarkably, the Mayor finds herself uniquely qualified to grade the efforts of the Ethics and Management and Efficiency Study Committees yet no one else qualified to grade hers.  Where else in life does one get to have such influence over the lives of so many people AND enjoy the privilege of grading one’s own papers? 

The Mayor cavalierly parses the shocking betrayal of public trust of an elected official suggesting that there is a tolerable level of corruption.  The arguments of comparative corruption hearken back to President Clinton’s "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is . . . “and President George W. Bush’s debate about the tolerable limits of arsenic in drinking water.
The Mayor acknowledges and expresses concern about the apparent perception of widespread corruption on the Commission.   Responsible leadership welcomes scrutiny – guarding against even the appearance of impropriety - to retain essential public trust. Whatever else she has or has not done, Mayor Ritter has demonstrated that she is no longer worthy of the continued trust of the electorate.

History is replete with accounts of leaders yielding to temptation and betraying the trust of their constituents.  There are those among us who can resist anything but temptation. The fall from grace of representatives embroiled in scandal is a perennial political activity.   Mayor Ritter’s denials of impropriety on the Commission are reminiscent of the famous line from the movie Casablanca: “I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Mayor Ritter prizes her judgment above all others’.  This being the judgment that finds comfort with an incestuous intermingling of private relationships and public actions by elected representatives yet great discomfort with independent oversight. 

As much as the Mayor and her husband are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the electorate is entitled to independent oversight and effective internal controls that eliminate the opportunities for representative to put their thumb on the scale and / or sound the alarm when they do.  No representative should be deemed guilty by association alone; similarly, the electorate is entitled to greater checks and balances within their government than the representatives’ claims that they are trustworthy.  Our system puts its faith in processes, not individuals.

Charlotte Greenbarg speaks to and for many Broward voters about issues that they care deeply about.  For Mayor Ritter to dismiss Charlotte as ‘hateful’ is clever political sleight of hand. Rather than acknowledging or addressing the concerns that Charlotte expressed, the Mayor simply demonized Charlotte in an attempt to reduce her to a one-dimensional caricature and then took license to ignore and dismiss the issues that Charlotte raised on behalf of many residents.   Following the Mayor's logic to its conclusion, grassroots representatives have no right to voice their grievances to their government while special interest lobbyists have every right to demand that the very same government jealously guard and advance their clients’ interests.  That is opportunistic self serving politics as usual.  That is not responsible leadership.

The electorate is pleading for transparency and accountability so that their confidence in THEIR government might be restored.  Their pleas have clearly fallen on deaf ears.  The Mayor clearly views reform as an infringement of her rights.  If she can’t stand the heat . . .

 “. . . but that is politics.”  As if these contemptible behaviors were some organically or naturally occurring phenomena and not the conscious and deliberate choices of elected representatives.  That fatalistic resignation is a perspective of privilege.  It is a disturbing expression of satisfaction with a status quo that advantages the privileged few and disadvantages the many. 

The arrogance is stunning.
We should all ask ourselves a few questions:
What kind of government tolerates no dissent?
What kind of government resists transparency and accountability?
What kind of government resents and rejects oversight?
What kind of government tolerates influence peddling?
What kind of government tolerates misconduct by its officials?

The Mayor's insistence that that hot searing pain is really just a warm breath of sunshine doesn't make it so.
Perhaps the most compelling argument is in Mayor Ritter’s own words:  “. . . if the public doesn't like the job we're doing, then the public knows how to get rid of us.”
Regards,
 
Don Urquhart

Ed.’s note: Don is president of a large condo association on Hollywood Beach