It is nothing more than political retaliation.
The Miami-Dade County Attorney’s office is trying to remove an outspoken, critical member of the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust who has been a thorn in the mayor’s side, saying that he can’t be on the oversight committee because he is involved in legal action against the county.
Attorney Paul Schwiep was advised via email — actually a copy of an email to 
CITT Director Javier Betancourt — that he had “relinquished” his seat on the board when he filed a legal action Oct. 26 against the county on behalf of the Friends of the Everglades, seeking to stop construction of the Kendall Parkway extension to the 836 expressway.
Oh no he didn’t, Schwiep shot back.
In a seven-page email with exhibits and legal precedent examples the attorney tells the county attorney, in no uncertain terms, that he has absolutely not relinquished nada and that he will be at the scheduled CITT meeting Thursday, as planned.
Read related: Carlos Gimenez taps commissioner to block return of half penny funds?
“The current county administration did not appoint me to the CITT and is not permitted to remove Trustees with whom they may disagree on particular issues, 
whether on ending unification or the extension of SR 836,” Schwiep, an appointee of Commissioner Daniela Levine Cava, writes in his response.
Schwiep has also been one of the leading voices on the call to end unification of half-penny surtax funds — which were supposed to be for the extension of metrorail — with operation and maintenance dollars. Something the current administration continues to do. Mayor Carlos Gimenez has even found a way to use the county attorney’s office to thwart a CITT directive that these funds stop being used this way.
And, to boot, Shwiep also sued MDX months ago to get documents related to the PR for the Kendall Parkway, some of which was done by the mayor’s daughter in law, a perk now that he is chairman of the board.
So, as one might imagine, Gimenez doesn’t love Schwiep.
“The mayor is not happy with me because I represent 
people opposed to the 836 extension and because I am on the transportation trust saying we have to end comingling,” Schwiep said. “He’s told me himself.”
Does he think Gimenez ordered Assistant County Attorney Annery Pulgar Alfonso to get Schwiep off the board? “That would be pure speculation,” he told Ladra.
But what else could it be? How likely is it that this was on Alfonso’s radar all by itself? After all, Schwiep represented another group that sued the county in 2013 — and nobody objected then.
No, more likely this is a move by Gimenez to silence a critic who is in an actual position to derail the mayor’s plans to keep using PTP funds forever to shore up his budget.
Read related: MDX spent $400K on PR, including $60K for mayor’s daughter-in-law
Not that the county has any legal standing, he said, adding that the county code section 2-11.38 cited by Alfonso to make him “relinquish” the seat does not apply. “They’re really out on a limb on this,” Schwiep said.
First off, the legal action is not a lawsuit, per se, which is what the county code speaks to. What Schwiep filed is an “administrative petition” to seek the review of an agency decision, which doesn’t go to court but rather the state’s Division of Administrative Hearings and before an administrative law judge. Sounds like a lawsuit to Ladra, but the legal nuances may have Schwiep technically in the clear.
No matter, though. Because, secondly, this particular part of the county code does not apply to the CITT, which is not a board created by the county commission but rather a trust created by voters who approved the People’s Transportation Plan in 2002. It’s an independent watchdog group separate from the government and as such is not subject to the same government rules.
Schwiep also argues that, thirdly, the county code section only applies to board members who participate as a party to a lawsuit, not who serve as counsel — like he did in 2013 for the Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper in an action against the county.
“No one at that time suggested that my service as counsel for the plaintiffs 
triggered section 2-11.38,” Schwiep wrote. “This demonstrates that your current opinion is no more than retribution for my work to end comingling of surtax funds and in opposition to the extension of SR 836.”
In addition, Schwiep went to the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust and got an opinion from them that he could serve as counsel on the administrative petition because the relief sought by the third parties are not associated with the CITT functions.
Schwiep ends by saying that he will be at the next CITT meeting Thursday afternoon. On the agenda are two $1.1 million contracts for environmental clean-up for the departments of transportation and public works and other departments using the half penny surtax funds.
And the county is requesting surtax funds for this, of course.
County tries to take out CITT member who irks Carlos Gimenez added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
