BP is going to the Dogs....um, make that Chickens

This week our infinitely moronic commission voted to allow residents to maintain livestock, i.e. backyard chickens due to some interpretation loophole found in the ADA regarding support animals. 

My question for those reading this is how would you feel living next door to a chicken coop housing multiple animals? Do you think this may affect property values, your quality of life, or the desirability of someone looking to buy into the Village? How about someone you’re looking to sell your house to?  

For these are the common sense questions this commission ignored.

The vote was 4-1 with Dan Samaria voting against. And of course Tracy didn’t recuse herself from voting as a “conflict of interest” due to her maintaining chickens (or have in the past) and as one who also requires an emotional support animal.

Background

The owner appeal before this commission on Regular Commission Meeting of June 04, 2019 to seek a special exception to chapter 3, article 1, sec 3.3 of the code of ordinances that states: The raising or maintaining of poultry, rabbits, pigeons, goats, cows, horses, pigs, white mice, or any grazing animal in the village shall be prohibited, however, the commission is authorized to grant special exception to this section subject to the imposition of special conditions upon showing and finding that they are not detrimental to environment. 
 

Proof was submitted to the commission (see below) confirming that chickens are considered a potential detriment to the environment, (CDC article and others) so that condition was met. This should have ended this request as there is no language in the code addressing any doctor’s note to be used as an exception, just the “finding that they are not detrimental to environment.”  

This was proven, but disregarded entirely.

 
Salmonella and Campylobacter are common public health hazards potentially associated with chicken contact. These bacteria are carried by healthy chickens and are communicable to people through direct contact, exposure to manure, or consumption of undercooked chicken and eggs. Intestinal bacteria from poultry can infect humans and cause urinary tract infections. The intestinal bacterium Enterococcus faecalis can transmit from chickens to humans, causing urinary tract infections. This discovery is yet another example of how emerging infectious diseases in humans often stem from animals.

More here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/backyard-chicken-poultry-flocks-human-health-risk-cdc-warns/

This code violation was submitted last November. The doctor’s note stating that the residents “support animal are backyard chickens” was dated 12/26/18 one month after the citation. However, the chickens had already been here for nearly one year before any doctor’s note was ever produced. Maybe it’s just me, but this whole thing looks like the resident just asked for the doctor's note (1 year later and after being reported) to support their decision to raise and maintain multiple chickens.    

 

From the code officer: “I cited this homeowner on November 26, 2018 (point of reference is they never came before the code board- MH) when you made me aware this existed.  However, the homeowner requested to apply for a Special Exception, which this request is allowed per our code. (Again, look at the exact language above- any “special exception” only pertains that they are not detrimental to the environment) This “special exception” is unique and is first time it has been requested from the Village.  As such, we needed information from the previous Village Attorney and new documents had to be written since this is different from an administrative variance.” 

 

On the application the petitioner (wife) claims that “they have kept backyard chickens for four years now." She also told the code officer “for 4-5 years now.” However, this was contradicted by her husband (and a next-door neighbor) who both stated that they have had the chickens for only 1.5 years.  So, someone is not telling the truth here.  BTW, this resident has 8 chickens. This may now be reduced to 4, but how many are needed for emotional support anyway? Also of note is that the chicken coop was built without a permit or approval from the Village’s P&Z board.  

The petitioner (husband) seemed quite defiant about “his rights” and other nonsensical comparisons between chickens (prohibited animals) and dog and cats (not prohibited animals) when pressed about coop inspections and possible required vaccinations. He also didn’t seem to know, or didn't want to disclose  how many chickens they have until pressed for an answer. Then he sheepishly confirmed that there are 8 animals. There were also other conditions discussed, which helps a little to mitigate this violation, but only time will tell if any of them will be followed through with. (My guess is that this will be my job as well to press for proof that these conditions have been met annually) Good times! Can't wait! SMH. 

So, instead of complying with all existing laws pertaining to this issue, this commission instead veered wide right citing some amended clause in the American Disability Act (ADA) regarding anxiety and support animals. Which was a reach around in my opinion.  They supported this clause over all existing codes fearing an alleged lawsuit. This to me seems manufactured by the new and inexperienced Village attorney as a scare tactic to support their pre-decision. For as you see above, the Village invested both their time (7 months) and taxpayer money to find this loophole and to create a “special exception” intending to violate our code.

And chickens could just be the beginning. For all you seemingly need is a doctor’s note citing anxiety and you could maintain any of the above listed prohibited animals. This is the door this commission has now opened. 

 

So neighbors, it’s now Open Season for keeping livestock in your yards. Pigs, goats, cows, llamas, alligators, you name it.  And, so sorry to any neighbors effected by this utter lack of sound judgement- just get over it. You, the majority don’t matter.

Again, property values or Village fiscal responsibility to homeowners be damned… we’re going to have our chickens! Yee Haw!

P.S. It was also mentioned that the Commission and possible members of staff are currently under investigation by the Miami-Dade Ethics Department. So, there’s that too. More to follow as details become available.

Standing Watch (while throwing up in my mouth a little listening to the chickens squawk their beaks off)

Milton Hunter

The Biscayne Parker

What is the FOIA?

This falls under The More You Know category as there have been substantial changes made recently on how the Village responds to (and bills for) public records requests.

As one who has made many such requests over the years for public records, I wanted to shine some light on this topic for those who are unaware and to illustrate what has now become questionable and seemingly biased tactics used by our Administration.

An Overview of the FOIA:

Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Please note that the FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies. Link Here: https://youtu.be/j5b9sSBiRTQ

That said the material changes made to our common practice are so deviated from the norm that I find it is worth a further examination.

Below are two examples of recent public records request. The names of the parties involved will be omitted, but the scope of work and timeframes will be shown.

Example #1

This public records request was made on Friday 11/2/2018 with an expedited request “being it is time sensitive” for delivery by Monday/Tuesday of the follow week.

SCOPE OF REQUEST: Dates 9/13/18- 11/2/18

·         All correspondence between resident X and the manager

·         All correspondence between residents X and Y and the manager

·         All correspondence between residents X and Y and every commissioner

·         All correspondence between residents X and Y and the police department

·         All correspondence between residents X and Y and the village attorney

The invoice generated from Next Level Systems (I.T. vendor) dated 11/7/18 for this search was $200.00. It was fulfilled in 7 days (request date to Village invoice date)

The invoice generated by the Village clerk to this resident (example #1) is dated 11/09/18. (As a point of reference, this invoice shows that it was received on 11/13/18 but was not stamped as being paid. This requires further examination as if there was proof of payment or not)

Re: Public Records Request dated November 02, 2018

Staff research- ½ hr. -                                               $14.02

No charge for the first 15 minutes of staff time- $6.01

Copies- 211 pages @ $0.15 ea. -                            $31.65

Total-                                                                           $37.66

Notice that the $200.00 (I.T. research fee) charged to the Village from NLS is not part of the invoice.  Why not?  

Example #2

This public records request was made on Thursday February 14, 2019.

SCOPE OF REQUEST: Dates February 14^th 2018- February 14^th 2019

From resident Z: “Pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 119 I am requesting that Mayor Tracy Truppman produce all phone logs and Village emails spanning the last 1 year period. Today is 2/14/2019 I believe that by 3/1/2019 you should have sufficient time to fill this request.”

This request was then amended on 2/15/19 to the following:

·         All of the Mayors Personal Cell Phone Logs and TEXT Messages that are in connection with Village Business

·         All of the Mayors Village emails

·         All of Commissioner Betsy Wise Phone Logs, emails and Text Messages pertaining to Village Business commencing Nov 6th 7PM to Date

·         All the Village Managers Text, phone log and emails pertaining to Village business for a one year period

Communication to the resident (with invoice) from the Village clerk was on 3/18/19- (31 days later- note that the previous request was expedited and fulfilled in 1 week)

Re: Public Records Request dated February 14, 2019

Staff research – 250 hours-                                $ 6,190.00

No charge for first 15 minutes of staff time   $ 6.19

IT service-                                                              $ 350.00

Text Messages- 233 pages                                 $ 34.95

Copies – 58,820 @ 0.15 ea.                               $ 8,823.00

Total-                                                                     $ 15,391.76

Upon receiving this invoice resident Z inquired as to the fee, “First, I asked that for this in PDF so no copies are necessary. Second, what staff research is needed? The phone records and text messages are provided by the carrier to the client at no charge all they have to do is download the invoices. Third, what IT services are needed? ” I’ll tell you what, standby I’ll get back to you on this.”

This request was again amended on March 15^th: “Based on this ridiculous estimated invoice and my conversation with the State Attorney’s Office, here is what I am now requesting. Please send me an estimated cost as soon as possible as I will need to agree and forward to State Attorney."

·         All Text messages since 11/6/2018 related to Village business from Tracy Truppman.

·         All Text messages since 11/6/2018 from Betsy Wise

·         All Text new messages since11/6/2018 from Village Manager.

As of today’s date, there has been no further communication from the Village clerk and this records request has not been fulfilled...  

I have also been made aware of other recent resident’s records requests that have been upcharged, delayed, ignored and/or improperly fulfilled. In my opinion, these actions violate the very sprit of the Freedom of Information Act.  

So, What Did We Learn?

First, off, the two requests are of a different timeframe and scope so we can’t make an apple-to-apple comparison. However, there are more disconcerting elements to uncover. Namely,

Example #1 was submitted from one of Tracy’s known supporters.

Example #2 was submitted from one who has been critical of Tracy.

As a point of record, in the past I have typically not been charged, or charged a nominal rate for all of the public records I have requested.  So you can imagine my shock at seeing this $15K+ invoice!

According to the FOIA guidelines, “There is usually no charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of duplication.” As listed above, the Village clerk charged after the first 15 minutes and offered no free pages of duplication. (Also charging the maximum fee per page without offering the use of back pages ($0.5 as opposed to $0.15). There was in addition a new “I.T. fee” created for resident Z’s invoice (example #2, again not charged on example #1) and a huge disparity in staff research time and costs between the two invoices- $6,175.98.

Further, there is no authorization in the Village Fee Schedule to charge these fees and there are Attorney General opinions (AGO) advising against similar fees. In looking over the contract with the I.T. company, there is no mention of any research fees that pass through to the public either as I.T. fees are not part of the Village Fee Schedule. It is the duty of the Village to produce records and make them available to the public.  If the Village incurs additional fees because of the process they have set up to retrieve records, then that is the cost of doing business to the Village and not to be passed along to the residents.

It seems clear that the purpose of this excessive charge on a public records invoice and similar charges to other residents (on or after February 2019) is meant to obstruct the public records process. At least that’s what I come up with. Should anyone have another idea or explanation, please feel free to leave it in the comment section below. 

Standing Watch,

Milton Hunter

The Biscayne Parker