RUSSELL W. GALBUT

v.

MIAMI DADE COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND PUBLIC

I I I .,. r . ? '0' w

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES

TO FILE RE-HEARING MOTION AND

, IF FILED DISPOSED OF. '

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN

AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,

FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

.-1' vi .» CASE NUMBER: 11-136

LOWER TRIBUNAL

' FILE NUMBER: RQO IO-24 RUSSELL W. GALBUT, - Petitioner, - .- M3- .\ A €.'Z,'\“fl' ' 5'I\ ‘fa? J3 :‘\ ‘VA a r é vs. _ g

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMMISSION

‘\/l A ON ETHICS AND_ PUBLIC TRUST, and F CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, OPINION FILED: Q52 3’, Z9/3' A petition for writ of certiorari fi'om the Miami-Dade County Commissi E . IL/-@1’”:\flw\‘Q’ Respondents. _ A Ii» on on thics and Public Trust. " ‘ DAVID H. NEVEL, ESQ., for Petitioner. JEAN K. OLIN, ESQ., GARY. M

HELD, ESQ

and VICTORIA FRI __ . _., * GO, ESQ., for Respondents. _ ' Before PETER R. LOPEZ, GILL s. FREEMAN, JOHN W. THORNTON, JJ. I‘!<_ R \ E '—'~3\5Q'3':I\d Q‘ Q’- [*2] -- . O O (THORNTON, J.) The petitioner, Russell Galbut, was employed as an asset manager for owners ofthe Mondrian Hotel on South Beach. Seth Frohlich has a financial interest in the Mondrian, and sat as a member ofthe City ofMiami Beach Planning Board. In August 2010, Mr. Galbut received a legal opinion from the Miami Beach City Attoi-ney’s office informing him that as a result ofhis business association with Frohlich, and Mr. Frohlich’s position on the planning board, he was prohibited from lobbying or appearing before any City board or body on any matters. The legal opinion cited Beach City Code Section 2-459 which states in pertinent part: (a) No member of a city board, agency or committee. . .shall: - (I) Either directly or through an associate, appear, represent, or act on behalf of a third person before the city commission or any city agency with respect to any agency action sought by the third person _ _ _ ' (2) Either directly or through an associate be engaged as a lobbyist for and on behalf of a third person with respect to any official action by any public ofiicer sough by such third person. The definitions section ofthe ordinance defines “associate” as follows: “[A]ny person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with a city agency member as a partner, joint venturer, or co~corporate shareholder. Associate shall further include a business affiliation with a city agency member where an ‘employee’ or ‘ofcounsel’ relationship exists,” Miami Beach Code § 2-459(b). . Mr. Galbut requested an opinion ii-om the Miami-Dado County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust regarding the City’s legal opinion that he was precluded from appearing before the Miami Beach Planning Board on any matters whatsoever. The Ethics Commission held a hearing on the issue in September 2010. The Ethics Commission met for a second time in March [*3] 2011, and the City ofMiami Beach presented a revised opinion stating that while Mr. Galbut is precluded from lobbying or appearing before the City on any matters pertaining to the Mondrian Hotel, he is permitted to lobby or appear on matters unrelated to the Mondrian. The Ethics Commission issued a written ruling on March 22, 201 l adopting the City’s revised opinion. This timely petition for writ of certiorari followed. ' Certiorari review of an action taken by a quasi-judicial authority is governed by a three part standard ofreview. Namely, the court must determine whether: 1) procedural due process was accorded; 2) the administrative authority applied the correct law; and 3) the findings of the administrative authority were supported by competent, substantial evidence. Dusseau v. Metro. Dade County Bd. ofCounty Commissioners, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1273 (Fla. 2001). Mr. Galbut concedes that prong one above was met — that he was afforded procedural due process. He argues, however, that prongs two and three were not met — in other words, that the Ethics Commission failed to apply the correct law, and that its ruling was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. _ ~ Florida courts generally defer to an agency's interpretation ofthe statutes and rules that agency is charged with implementing and enforcing. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273, 1283 (Fla. 2000). The Ethics Commission’s ruling employed Miami Beach City Code Section 2-459 - the applicable law with regard to Mr. Galbut’s lobbying or appearing before the City ofMiami Beach Planning Board. Further, the Ethics Commission applied the law in a manner consistent with the language of Section 2~459. As such, we find that the Ethics Commission applied the correct law in this case. [*4] I ti I M . Q This Court must next consider whether the Ethics Cornmission’s ruling is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Dusseau, 794 So. 2d at 1273. The Court is precluded from reweighing evidence, and instead must review the record for the limited prupose of determining the existence of any evidentiary support for the Ethics Commission’s decision. Id. We find that the Ethics“ Commission had before it evidence ofa business relationship between Mr. Galbut and Mr. Frohlich that elevated them to the status of “associates” under Section 2-459. This evidence was in the form of both testimony and supporting documentation, and met the standard of competent, substantial evidence. The Ethics Commission’s ruling both followed the essential requirements ofthe law, and was based on competent substantial evidence. As a result, this Court DENIES the petition for writ of certiorari. LOPEZ and FREEMAN, 31., concur.