Planning Board member Scott Sallis read a written statement into the record at the Aug. 11 board meeting. He said that he voted on the his client’s item in July because of the counsel he was given by city staff—that vote violated Florida ethics law. Read PBR.
Although he felt uncomfortable about it, he voted. Sallis said, “Based on past assurances which I believed included approval from the direction of city staff I participated in the discussion and the vote, but under the impression I was doing so in full compliance.”
He said he has filed a “memorandum of voting conflict to the Florida Ethics Commission.”
Sallis warned citizens serving boards to “not rely on an objection or absence of objection from city staff in the matter.”
Planning Board chair Paul Ritz also spoke up. In July, he had told the audience that Sallis could vote on his client’s item. He said on Aug. 11 that such votes have occurred before.
He said, “I know that on this board in the little over ten years I have served, I’ve witnessed a few times when it was under the opinion of this board and possibly staff members at those times, when it was acceptable to do.”
Sallis:
Thank you, ….um…, so, I’ve prepared a statement to my fellow board members, and obviously the record and the public, with regard to some significant issues in the media, as of late, concerning my name, and the subsequent experience I’ve had with the city.
So, I typically hate ‘read statements’. I don’t like to do that. I like to speak as my mind says, but this is pretty important, so, I’ve put it in writing. if you all will bear with me I’d like to read that statement
So, I’ll begin by saying this:
It has been an uncomfortable and humbling experience for me, I’ve never had my integrity questioned before. I’m a volunteer member of the planning board and I’ve recused myself from a number of votes over the years despite assurances from my chairman and city staff that there is no reason to do so.
Recently a citizen brought up a point of order during a planning board meeting questioning whether I should participate in a specific discussion and vote. The chairman responded stating, as in the past, that my specific board position allows me to vote on items my office brings.
I said publicly during that meeting that I felt uncomfortable with a city system where I was allowed to vote on my own work. Based on past assurances which I believed included approval from the direction of city staff I participated in the discussion and the vote, but under the impression I was doing so in full compliance.
I’ve served on the planning board for many years devoting my own personal time because I care about this city. I’m not a lawyer or a bureaucrat, and regrettably I put my faith on the counsel I was given. Before moving ahead that day I should have pushed back, questioned things further, and asked city staff to confirm the information right then with legal.
Regardless of the approval to proceed, I should have listened to my gut and stopped the discussion until I was 100% percent certain it was okay for me to participate. I wish I had done those things, but I did not.
After learning of a possible problem with my vote I immediately met with city staff and city attorney and participated in a conference call with the ethics commission during that meeting. The city staff communicated to me that they regretted I had been placed in this situation. As requested by the city, I’ve completed a memorandum of voting conflict to the Florida Ethics Commission, I’ve asked city staff to file this document as stated on the form.
This experience has been awkward and humbling and I encourage any citizen, particularly my board members, who chooses to serve this city alongside me, to recognize that risk comes with this choice, and to act independently, and to question any legal matter at hand, and not rely on an objection or absence of objection from city staff in the matter.
So, thanks guys.
Paul Ritz:
Thank you very much, I have to admit I have been, I was at there the helm of some of that, because of the information I believed to be true and correct from years past when I was the architect position of this planning board. I am not that position now and have not been for several years.
It had been my information from previous boards that that was appropriate, hence the discussion at that meeting that I suggested that. I think today, further along in our agenda, we will have a presentation by the city attorney to help alleviate these issues.
Like Mr. Sallis said, we’re all volunteers, we all have a different profession. We sit here on our own time, at least I know I do. Every month I’m here. Someone earlier made a comment about being on vacation from their work to make a presentation here.
I understand that and I would offer that every month that I’m here or even sometimes twice a month, if there are special meetings events, I also do so on my own personal or vacation time. If I choose to clock a full 40 at my office I have to work an additional hour or two to compensate.
All board members really, we are not alone in that, we are here as volunteers. There can be risk, but we operate in my opinion as best we know for what we’re given, and whenever we’re told, if we need to make a correction, or a revision, then we do so. And as this statement has been read I believe that has been done.
So, going forward we now know more information than we did know. I’ve been allowed to change my thoughts and ideas. and further on in agenda item 8 we may have some more items come before us.
And it was emotional I have to admit, I know that on this board in the little over ten years I have served, I’ve witnessed a few times when it was under the opinion of this board and possibly staff members at those times, when it was acceptable to do.
And it was the opinion and my belief that that was appropriate.
But, now we’ve had the statement, I’ve made a few comments to round out my idea on the item so thank you, Mr. Sallis.
————
Sallis and Ritz believed they were not violating the law. They believed the designated architect on the board (Sallis) had a special exemption from the law. When city staff did not object to Sallis and Ritz’s statements that he could participate and vote, their belief was reaffirmed.
However, the law was broken, and maybe has been broken several times in the past.
No one at city hall stopped it. Volunteers may make mistakes, but we rely on city staff to know the law and to make sure board members follow it.
Instead of openly discussing the violation, City Administrator Eric Olson and City Attorney Lysia Bowling have chosen to cover it up, refusing to do interviews and answer questions.
Sallis’ carefully worded statement doesn’t make this matter go away.
