Watching Broward


GRAND JURY REPORT: FAILURE TO REPORT GIFTS IS MISLEADING
We'll start here, and no, I'm not going in any particular order. From the report: "For example, at the semi-annual FSBA meetings, corporate sponsors treat guests to free cocktails and dinners at expensive restaurants & Several sponsors combine to host the dinner and disclose on the invitation itself that the meal need not be reported because each sponsor contributed less than $25.00. This of course pertains to the sponsor's reporting requirement not the Board members. Board members must report all gifts valued at over $100.00, regardless of how many donors contributed. Unfortunately it appears some Board members may have misinterpreted this footnote on the invitation as applying to them, either out of ignorance or convenience. One Board member even testified that she believed this was the opinion of the General Counsel's Office." Not quite... The report continues... "(1) For purposes of any gift disclosure to be made by a reporting individual or procurement or employee, the value of a gift provided by multiple donors is determined by the valuation principles of Section 112.3148(7), F.S, and Rule 34-13.500 applied to the gift as a whole, rather than by any pro rata share. (emphasis added)" "Instead it appears that every Board member who has attended these dinners for at least the last five years has bought into this convenient interpretation." The report fails to define "multiple donors" in many situations, and since the subject of meal and ticket valuation has come up before, (Michael Mayo) it's worth looking at. Yes, several vendors can combine their resources at the FSBA as noted and the "disclaimer" applies to the vendors themselves to comply with their legal requirements. But the report somehow forgot to include this: fs3148(7)(a) The value of a gift provided to a reporting individual or procurement employee shall be determined using actual cost to the donor, less taxes and gratuities, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, and, with respect to personal services provided by the donor, the reasonable and customary charge regularly charged for such service in the community in which the service is provided shall be used. If additional expenses are required as a condition precedent to eligibility of the donor to purchase or provide a gift and such expenses are primarily for the benefit of the donor or are of a charitable nature, such expenses shall not be included in determining the value of the gift. You can bet that someone's complaining about gifts over $100. It isn't that simple. The paragraph above can be applied to not only the FSBA "dinners" alone, but anything such as a ticket to a charitable event centered around a "dinner" no matter what the cost of entry, whether $250 or free.. According to the law, it's the cost of the food on the plate itself that counts, the "charitable portion" of a ticket price doesn't count. (k) The value of a gift of an admission ticket shall not include that portion of the cost which represents a charitable contribution, if the gift is provided by the charitable organization. However, a pair of tickets to a Miami Dolphins game to one particular School Board member doesn't count for the exclusions. But a ticket to a political event to the same School Board member, if the ticket is tax deductible, may very well count for the exclusion. So the real question becomes; how many "dinners" have you attended costing over $100 for the value of the food on the plate? And remember taxes, gratuities, etc., don't count toward the value. None? Well unless Board members were each drinking bottles of Dom Perignon, neither were they. So what we get from the report is a fleeting mention of the bi-annual FSBA meeting with a hatchet job full of innuendo, but little or no fact.: "According to witnesses and records we reviewed, numerous Board members have attended these dinners yet our investigation reveals only one Florida Quarterly Gift Disclosure Form has been filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics by any Board member in the last five years, a remarkable record." So all but that one Board member may have committed ethics violations or crimes? Well, maybe not... The hatchet job continues: "Of course it is possible that the Board members subsequently reimbursed the sponsors for the event, which points out one of the difficulties of the current law, i.e. investigators not only have to prove the acceptance of the gift they have to prove a negative, that the value of the gift was not returned." So the report indicts the Board members over gifts with no business using its own examples and then says well, maybe it's possible that reimbursement was made. Indict and then qualify. Innuendo, not fact... How convenient!

GRAND JURY REPORT: FAILURE TO REPORT GIFTS IS MISLEADING

We'll start here, and no, I'm not going in any particular order.

From the report:

"For example, at the semi-annual FSBA meetings, corporate sponsors treat guests to free cocktails and dinners at expensive restaurants & Several sponsors combine to host the dinner and disclose on the invitation itself that the meal need not be reported because each sponsor contributed less than $25.00. This of course pertains to the sponsor's reporting requirement not the Board members. Board members must report all gifts valued at over $100.00, regardless of how many donors contributed. Unfortunately it appears some Board members may have misinterpreted this footnote on the invitation as applying to them, either out of ignorance or convenience. One Board member even testified that she believed this was the opinion of the General Counsel's Office."

Not quite...

The report continues...

"(1) For purposes of any gift disclosure to be made by a reporting individual or procurement or employee, the value of a gift provided by multiple donors is determined by the valuation principles of Section 112.3148(7), F.S, and Rule 34-13.500 applied to the gift as a whole, rather than by any pro rata share. (emphasis added)"

"Instead it appears that every Board member who has attended these dinners for at least the last five years has bought into this convenient interpretation."

The report fails to define "multiple donors" in many situations, and since the subject of meal and ticket valuation has come up before, (Michael Mayo) it's worth looking at.

Yes, several vendors can combine their resources at the FSBA as noted and the "disclaimer" applies to the vendors themselves to comply with their legal requirements.

But the report somehow forgot to include this:

fs3148(7)(a) The value of a gift provided to a reporting individual or procurement employee shall be determined using actual cost to the donor, less taxes and gratuities, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, and, with respect to personal services provided by the donor, the reasonable and customary charge regularly charged for such service in the community in which the service is provided shall be used. If additional expenses are required as a condition precedent to eligibility of the donor to purchase or provide a gift and such expenses are primarily for the benefit of the donor or are of a charitable nature, such expenses shall not be included in determining the value of the gift.

You can bet that someone's complaining about gifts over $100.

It isn't that simple.

The paragraph above can be applied to not only the FSBA "dinners" alone, but anything such as a ticket to a charitable event centered around a "dinner" no matter what the cost of entry, whether $250 or free..

According to the law, it's the cost of the food on the plate itself that counts, the "charitable portion" of a ticket price doesn't count.

(k) The value of a gift of an admission ticket shall not include that portion of the cost which represents a charitable contribution, if the gift is provided by the charitable organization.

However, a pair of tickets to a Miami Dolphins game to one particular School Board member doesn't count for the exclusions.

But a ticket to a political event to the same School Board member, if the ticket is tax deductible, may very well count for the exclusion.

So the real question becomes; how many "dinners" have you attended costing over $100 for the value of the food on the plate?

And remember taxes, gratuities, etc., don't count toward the value.

None?

Well unless Board members were each drinking bottles of Dom Perignon, neither were they.

So what we get from the report is a fleeting mention of the bi-annual FSBA meeting with a hatchet job full of innuendo, but little or no fact.:

"According to witnesses and records we reviewed, numerous Board members have attended these dinners yet our investigation reveals only one Florida Quarterly Gift Disclosure Form has been filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics by any Board member in the last five years, a remarkable record."

So all but that one Board member may have committed ethics violations or crimes?

Well, maybe not...

The hatchet job continues:

"Of course it is possible that the Board members subsequently reimbursed the sponsors for the event, which points out one of the difficulties of the current law, i.e. investigators not only have to prove the acceptance of the gift they have to prove a negative, that the value of the gift was not returned."

So the report indicts the Board members over gifts with no business using its own examples and then says well, maybe it's possible that reimbursement was made.

Indict and then qualify.

Innuendo, not fact...

How convenient!