Top ethics official says Miami commissioner’s planned vote would violate ethics rules

A top county ethics official said Wednesday that newly elected Miami City Commissioner Miguel Gabela would run afoul of the county ethics code if he casts a vote this week to re-include his family home within the boundaries of his district.

Despite the ethics official’s recommendation, Gabela plans to vote on Thursday when the City Commission will decide whether or not to override a veto from Mayor Francis Suarez that stalled Gabela’s efforts to move back into his family home, which had been within his District 1 boundaries for decades before the voting map changed last year.

“This is about correcting a wrong,” Gabela said. “This funny business that went on with me — or anybody else — has to stop, because, again, we are eroding democracy if this is allowed to stand.”

Jose Arrojo, executive director of the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, recommended to the Ethics Commission on Wednesday that it issue a formal opinion stating that a vote by Gabela to override the mayor’s veto would violate the voting conflict provision in the county’s ethics ordinance.

Arrojo argued Wednesday that Gabela could receive a “personal” and “significant” benefit if he votes on the matter, which affects just his home and three of his neighbors.

“I can’t think of a more individual benefit to a voting member than where he or she is going to be able to live with his family,” Arrojo said. “I think that’s an incredible benefit. I would not want to live outside of my family home.”

“So my suggestion,” Arrojo continued, “is that the opinion should be that there is a voting conflict that would prevent Mr. Gabela from voting on the agenda item tomorrow.”

Arrojo pointed to a potential financial benefit for Gabela: The commissioner could rent out the investment property where he is currently living if he’s allowed to move back into his family home. (Gabela’s chief of staff later said the commissioner’s daughter would move into the rental property while she’s in school, and that Gabela would cover the costs and not benefit financially.)

Gabela sought the opinion from the Ethics Commission in anticipation of Thursday’s vote, which follows a Christmas Eve veto from Suarez that invalidated a Dec. 14 commission vote that drew Gabela’s home back into the district. In a veto memo, Suarez cited a new state law that went into effect July 1 that prevents sitting elected officials from redrawing district boundaries to favor themselves. The mayor said Gabela should recuse himself.

On Wednesday, Gabela’s attorney, Juan-Carlos Planas, denied that his client would benefit from the vote.

“The benefit is to Gabela’s back,” Planas said, “because he doesn’t have to sleep on an air mattress or anything else. He can actually sleep in his bed.”

Planas described what he called a “parade of horribles” that could ensue should the Ethics Commission follow Arrojo’s recommendation, including the possibility that the decision could create quorum issues, or that it could be an Equal Protection violation if the same standard isn’t applied to District 3 Commissioner Joe Carollo, who previously voted on a redistricting map that drew his personal home into his district. (That vote happened before the new state law went into effect.)

“This opinion, as well-intentioned as it is, will paint you guys into a corner,” Planas said to the Ethics Commission.

Referring to three redistricting-related cases pending in state and federal court, the Ethics Commission opted not to issue an opinion Wednesday.

Board member Nelson Bellido said Arrojo’s analysis is “appropriate, if you look at this in a vacuum,” but that it’s important to weigh the letter of the law against public trust.

“I’m conflicted here, because I think the public trust is paramount,” Bellido said. “So, which is to take precedence? Oftentimes, it’s the ethics code, because that’s our bible.”

Board member and former Miami City Commissioner Wilfredo “Willy” Gort told Gabela that, considering the ongoing court cases, issuing an opinion at this time would be “working against you.”

“I understand a lot of wrong has been done to you, and I think the public knows about it,” Gort said. “But at the same time, we don’t want to [fix] a wrong by creating another wrong.”