After watching the March 16, 2021 City Commission Meeting again, we’re firmly convinced that the only reason Hans Ottinot was handpicked by Commissioners Michael Joseph, McKenzie Fleurimond, Paule Villard, and Daniela Jean, a/k/a Team Apocalypse, to be the Interim City Attorney is to make them appear intelligent.

Well, at least not as stupid.

Which is a tall order.

Their scheme to hire Hans only worked because at the January 28, 2021 Commission meeting, Michael shut down all discussion by “calling the question,” at which point there was an immediate vote.  To absolutely no one’s surprise, the four co-conspirators, who now have the majority, voted in the affirmative.

When we exposed their violation of Robert’s Rules of Order, which requires a 2/3 vote to call the previous question, Team Apocalypse had to come up with a new plan in order to subvert democracy.

Michael’s Illegal Ordinance

Michael Joseph decided having to abide by the internationally recognized rules of parliamentary procedure, or Robert’s Rules of Order, and which the City had adopted by Ordinance in 1957, was in the way ramming through his destructive agenda.

Brittanica.com defines parliamentary procedure as “the generally accepted rules, precedents, and practices commonly employed in the governance of deliberative assemblies.  Such rules are intended to maintain decorum, to ascertain the will of the majority, to preserve the rights of the minority, and to facilitate the orderly transaction of the business of an assembly.”

So he enlisted the help of his useful idiot, Hans Ottinot, to draft an Ordinance stating that even though “Robert’s Rules of Order specifically provides that when a motion is made to stop the consideration of a main motion/question, this incidental motion requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote to pass,” Michael wants to be able to “call for a vote on a particular matter” with a simple majority of 4 votes – knowing full well that those 4 votes will always be his and those of his three co-conspirators.

In order to justify his illegal Ordinance, Hans Ottinot had the audacity to state in his Memorandum, “The City of North Miami Beach generally follows Robert’s Rules of Order for its meetings.  However, there are some instances where the City has deviated from its strict application.”

Hans then nonsensically penned, “This ordinance addresses one of those instances when Robert’s Rules of Order provides that there must be a two-thirds (2/3) vote to carry on the business of a body which means that in the City of North Miami Beach there must be a supermajority vote of five to pass a motion relating to a procedural issue when only a simple majority vote of four is needed to pass a substantive motion.”

In other words, Hans is actually recommending that, even though the City government adheres to Robert’s Rules, there are “some instances” where it has not done so; therefore, we need to throw out all the Rules we don’t like.

This is not the first act of stupidity Hans has committed as a municipal attorney.

The Accomplice

When Temple B’Nai Zion, an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue in Sunny Isles Beach, announced plans to demolish and rebuild its building, its then-City Attorney Hans Ottinot enacted a Resolution to declare the property as a historic landmark.  The Temple sued the City for “religious discrimination”

An article published in the Jewish publication Vos Iz Neias reported, “The law firm of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. has filed suit on behalf of Temple B’Nai Zion, an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue located in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, charging the City of Sunny Isles Beach, and its Mayor, Norman S. Edelcup, with violation of the synagogue’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Federal religious land use rights. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.”

The article continues, “According to the suit, the designation of the Temple’s property as a ‘historic site,’ took place soon after the City declined to designate as “historic” several older and more historically and culturally significant properties owned by non-religious assemblies or institutions.”

Furthermore, “The suit charges that the City and Mayor Edelcup have maliciously and inappropriately used the historical landmark designation powers to prevent the Synagogue from renovating its property to bring it into adherence with Orthodox Jewish practices. The suit ascribes the actions to the shift of the Synagogue in 2005 to Orthodox Judaism, a move which displeased many former members of the congregation, Mayor Edelcup included.”

After a four year battle, including the City’s losses in the Third District Court of Appeals and the Eleventh U.S. Court of Appeals, a settlement agreement “was reached with a court-appointed mediator,” according to the Miami Herald.

The bottom line is that then-Mayor Norman S. Edelcup had a personal grudge against his Synagogue for “going Orthodox,” so he directed his henchman, the incompetent City Attorney Hans Ottinot, to get even by any means necessary.

And that, my friends, is the answer the burning question on everyone’s minds, “How did Hans keep his job at SIB for nearly 14 years?”

The problem is that Hans Ottinot’s harebrained scheme ended up costing Sunny Isles Beach taxpayers $1,689,500 worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) and “five (5) dwelling units,” plus a $175,000 cash payment, as well as outourced legal fees of an unknown amount, which we will update when we receive our public records.

As we previously reported, Hans Ottinot was also hired as “permanent-but-really-interim” City Attorney of Tamarac to be the henchman for racist/sexist Commissioner Marlon D. Bolton, who has a personal grudge against Mayor Michelle Gomez.

It’s also become very clear that Hans Ottinot was chosen by Michael Joseph and his co-conspirators as City Attorney of North Miami Beach to do the same for them.

If that weren’t the case, Michael’s illegal Ordinance, which was solely designed to shut down all discussion by their colleagues and the public, would never have been drafted in the first place.

All of their actions at the Commission meeting prove their intent, and also prove their collective stupidity.  It truly was one of the more embarrassing meetings in the history of North Miami Beach.

The hilarity began at 2:36:40 of the meeting video, when Micheal’s proposed Ordinance was brought up.

In fits and starts, Michael attempted to justify his Ordinance by spewing a bunch of nonsense, and claiming that “Robert [sic] Rules conflicts with the Charter.”

Oh, and he “sought this out” because he wants “synergy.”

When he finished mumbling his nonsensical rationale he said, “If the City Attorney could opine a little bit more on that process, I would appreciate him to do so [sic].  Thank you”

Interim City Attorney Hans Ottinot got off to an inauspicious start.  At hour 2:38:10, he launched into a mostly undecipherable explanation which, in the end, explained absolutely nothing.

Hans Opines.  Or something.

If you’ve ever heard Hans Ottinot speak in public, the first thing you’ll notice is that he does not enunciate his words.

Not only does he speak way too fast, omitting entire syllables of words in the process, but he completely ignores plurals, possessives, and tense.  As a result, it’s extremely difficult to understand what he’s saying, even on the rare occasion that he actually knows what he’s talking about.

When Michael asked Hans to “opine” on his illegal Ordinance, we took the time – well over an hour – to transcribe each and every word that he managed to spit out in the painful two minutes and nineteen seconds he had the floor.

He began, “Vice Mayor Joseph had request [sic] that I research this item, uh, I extensely [sic] research [sic] this item, along with Deputy City Attorney Pamela Ryan, uh, to determine what Robert [sic] Rules o [sic] Order require [sic] in terms of a two-third vote, uh, in fact I bought [sic] my book here wit [sic] me tonight, and basically the Robert [sic] Rules, uh, require [sic] a simple majority vote except in, basically, three circumstance [sic].  Let me read it for the record.  When the motion propose [sic] an action which By Laws a special rules of order describe some other requirement, uh, similar … the example they gave, uh, if, if the Charter or By Law [sic] of an organization it require [sic] two-third vote.  That’s the first example.”

“Uh, the second exception of a simple majority vote is when the adoption a motion [sic] have [sic] the effect of suspendin [sic] a rule of order, uh, parliamentary right of a member in which it requires two-thirds vote.  For example, a motion to place a special limit on the lenf [sic] or number of speeches per member during a meetin [sic] or session.”

“The third, uh, exception to the simple majority vote is when adoption a motion [sic] would have the effect of changing something already adopted as an emotion [sic] to postpone an event previously scheduled by vote of this assembly or a discharge of, of, two of [unintelligible] committee.”

“Uh, uh, in simple words is that a simple majority vote is generally a requirement wit, with, three limited exception [sic].”

And yet, Hans still wasn’t done bullshittin [sic].

“So, uh, additionally, uh, I research [sic] and review [sic] the City Charter extensive [sic] wit [unintelligible], uh, the City Charter Section 2.6 of the City Charter provides that the City Commission shall have the power to adop [sic] Ordis [sic] Resolutions, rules for the conduc [sic] of meetins [sic].  There is nothing in the City Charter that preclude [sic], uh, the City Commission from adoptin [sic] this Ordinance or from creatin [sic] clarity with respect to Robert [sic] Rules o [sic] Order.  Uh, based on the research conducted by myself and Ms. Ryan, I strongly fell [sic] and very comfortable [sic] wit [sic] the legal position with respect to this Ordinance.”

Henchman or not, we have no idea how the Sunny Isles Beach City Commission put up with this embarrassment as its City Attorney for fourteen long years.

Believe it or not, the meeting only got worse from there.

Stupid is as Stupid Hires

Commissioner Fortuna Smukler spoke next and needed clarification between the City’s Charter and its Code.  When she was unsatisfied with Hans’ responses, she turned to Pamela Ryan, who is an employee of Ottinot Law, P.A., the firm hired as the City Attorney.  Ms. Ryan is not the “Deputy City Attorney,” as Hans insisted on calling her.  Ms. Ryan’s salary should be included in the extravagant $55,000 per month that North Miami Beach taxpayers are shelling out to Ottinot Law, P.A.  There is no line item in the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Adopted Budget for a “Deputy City Attorney,” and Hans has no right to arbitrarily create such a position.

Nevertheless, Ottinot Law, P.A. employee Pamela Ryan said, “Your Charter and your Code in Municode is in a very weird way.”

We searched the Municodes of several local cities, including North Miami Beach, North Miami, Miami Gardens, Miami Shores, Miami Beach, El Portal, Surfside, and even Hialeah.  If NMB’s Municode is “in a very weird way,” according to Pamela Ryan, then all of them are.

And yet, this is not even the stupidest “legal advice” given by Ottinot Law, P.A. employee Pamela Ryan during the meeting, which we will discuss in a moment.

But first, she revealed Michael Joseph’s real agenda to repeal all responsible City policy by insisting, “Robert’s Rules of Order really is written for big committees, huge meetings, and most cities have adopted it to some degree, but also most cities adopt rules that pare down Robert’s Rules of Order, and the City of North Miami Beach hasn’t done that completely, and that’s one of the things that we hope to tackle with the City Clerk in the very near future, but you’re able to pass an Ordinance that restricts Robert’s Rules of Order.”

According to the official website of Robert’s Rules of Order, “Robert’s Rules of Order is America’s foremost guide to parliamentary procedure.  It is used by more professional associations, fraternal organizations, and local governments than any other authority.”

If you think Ottinot Law, P.A. employee Pamela Ryan couldn’t get anything else WRONG, or be more incompetent as a municipal attorney, grab your popcorn, because you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

At hour 3:10:33, Commissioner Fortuna Smukler then asked Ms. Ryan, “And so, to do this, we don’t need a supermajority.  We just need a majority?”

Ryan responded, “That’s what’s so interesting.  So, if you were a body of five, you would only need three, which is a majority.  So, it just depends on how many people are on your Commission.

She continued to ad lib, “But, this is a procedural rule, and so you can change a procedural rule that requires a supermajority by a simple majority.  So, you pass an Ordinance, or you pass a Resolution in the way that you always do.  So, basically, what this Ordinance is asking you to do is to pass an Ordinance by simple majority that will affect a rule that requires a supermajority vote.  So, yes, you can do that.  These rules are all procedural in nature.  Robert’s Rules only requires [sic] simple ma–, well, uh, a supermajority vote because of, because you have seven people on your Commission.  It would not be a supermajority vote if you only had five.  It would be a majority.  It requires two-thirds, so let’s be very clear.  A two-thirds vote is needed to pass an Ordinance, I’m sorry, to pass one of these procedural, um, rules, which is a motion to, um, to end debate is a procedural rule and it requires a two-thirds majority vote.”

Without even realizing it, she actually argued AGAINST Michael’s Ordinance by saying that a two-thirds vote would be needed to pass the “procedural rule” to end debate.

But her stupid logic didn’t end there.

At hour 3:15:51, Commissioner Barbara Kramer asked Pamela Ryan, “If there’s five members of a body, a supermajority would be four.  Are you telling me that’s not the case?  That there’s no such thing as a supermajority when you have five people on a Commission?”

Ryan answered, “No, no, no, that’s, it’s four, but that’s more than, uh, that’s a supermajority.  But, Robert’s Rules doesn’t [sic] say you need a supermajority.  It just says two-thirds.”

Except that a two-thirds vote IS a supermajority, a concept apparently above her paygrade which, thankfully, is coming out of Hans’ pocket and not the taxpayers’.

As if she hadn’t already proven her incompetence, she actually said, “And so, two-thirds of five is less than two-thirds of seven. ”

She continued along the same line of stupidity.  “I don’t know exactly what it is, but two-thirds of five is three.”

She actually dug her heels in.

“It’s 3 point something, below 3.5.  But two-thirds of seven is, um, 4.6 I think.”

Barbara wasn’t having any of that stupidity.  She said, “Okay, so I’m working on my computer, and I’m not good at math, but it’s 3.33.  I just want to clarify that because I don’t want bad information out there.  A supermajority is a supermajority, and if you’re a body of five, you can’t have 3.33 people.  So, it’s four.”

Pamela:  “No, it’s three!”

Apparently, Pamela Ryan is no expert on math.  She’s also no expert on what constitutes a two-thirds vote, regardless of the number of members in the body.

So we consulted the work of an actual expert, Shane D. Dunbar, MEd, PRP-R, PAP, a member and past officer of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians and has been certified as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian and Professional Accredited Parliamentarian.

According to his bio, “Mr. Dunbar has conducted over 541 parliamentary procedure workshops for 12,897 participants.  Some of the groups that he has instructed include: FFA, FBLA, FCCLA, SkillsUSA, BPA, TSA, DECA and their advisors, college student senates and their advisors, and secondary school student councils and their advisors. Other groups include: The American Institute of Bankers, Church Council members, Toastmasters, City Council members, school board members, the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians, and the Marie O’Connell Parliamentary Law Unit.”

Needless to say, Mr. Dunbar knows a whole lot more than Ms. Ryan about what constitutes a two-thirds supermajority vote.

In fact, he even published a Table for Determining Majority and Two-Thirds votes, which clearly shows that two-thirds of a five-member body is FOUR!

We’d love to reach out to Ottinot Law, P.A. employee Pamela Ryan for her comment, but she blocked our email address from her address book.

This is, of course, illegal for her to do since her law firm is a vendor of a public entity, but considering the source, we’re not surprised.

Mall Cop Says What?

As if that wasn’t enough stupidity for one meeting, Commissioner Paule Villard added to the mix by adding her two cents, which was just as worthless as her twenty-year-to-the-day lackluster career as a City of Miami police officer.

Paule’s words of wisdom:  “The only thing that I can say about this one is that I would agree because sometimes we do talk, you know we drag about the same thing over and over and over.  So, I think actually we have two times ten minutes.  I think we really should go on because sometimes we filabustin’.

She closed with, “So I, the only thing, sometimes we do, we put our feelings into those I understand, but sometimes we just after we speak for ten minutes and ten minutes again and then we just go on with the, with the, you know, with the vote and I believe like, uh, you know, the majority is, uh, that’s, I think that’s better than having a supermajority.”

Puppet Commissioner “Speaks”

At hour 3:27:25 of the meeting video, Puppet Commissioner Daniela Jean picked up a list of questions previously written for her to read, and asked Hans, “Under the Charter currently, what are the instances where a supermajority required?”

Hans responded, “Based on my, uh, recollection, it’s the quorum requirement, uh, which you need five, uh, members of the Commission to be present to have a quorum.  Uh, there’s no, uh, with respect to votin [sic] there’s no provision in the Charter that require [sic] a supermajority with respect to votin [sic] on any matter.”

He either did not research the Charter or he’s lying because we found at least two instances that do require a supermajority vote.  These are:

1. Article II, Sec. 2-3 – Compensation, which reads, “Members of the City Commission shall receive such compensation as shall be fixed by the Commission. The compensation of members of the City Commission may be increased by the affirmative vote of five members of the Commission.
2. Article II, Sec. 2-8 – Emergency Ordinances, which reads, “The City Commission may, by 2/3 vote of the members of the City Commission adopt an emergency ordinance at the meeting at which it is introduced and may make it effective immediately, except that no emergency ordinance shall be enacted which establishes or amends the actual zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land or that changes the actual list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category.”

Referring to her script once again, Daniela wanted to know “the difference between what’s being proposed and what’s currently in place,” as if she didn’t already know the answer.

“Uh, right now, Commisher [sic] Jean, is, uh, right now under Robert [sic] Rules o [sic] Order, uh, uh, a simple majority vote is generally required as I indicated before, there’s really three exceptions, one, is obviously if there is a Charter amendment or By Laws of organization require a supermajority, two, if, uh, obviously, uh, there’s a motion to, uh, limit I would say the time frame of, of a member to speak, uh, to, uh, also limit the number of speeches, so that’s require [sic] a supermajority.  And also, uh, the mass [sic] exception if adoption of a motion would affect of [unintelligible] of something already adopted as a motion of postponing a vent [sic] previously scheduled.  And this is based on the most recent, uh, Robert [sic] Rules o [sic] Order, and, and, more importantly, uh, as indicated previously by Commisher [sic] Floorinon [sic], the City as a legislav [sic] body has authority to amend the Robert [sic] Rules of Order which have, has been done in the past.”

Maybe if Hans had actually reviewed the Charter and Code like we did, he would have been prepared with a correct – and coherent – response.

Despite his non-answer, Daniela plowed on, consulted her prepared script, and read, “The next question is, um, would we be voting to remove [looks down at her script], would we be voting to approve that a supermajority is needed to, to limit someone’s time?”

Hans immediately said, “No, that’s not, that’s not…,” and Daniela immediately responded with, “Okay,” before he even finished his sentence.  She then appeared to read the next prepared question, when Hans interrupted her with, “A simple majority would be, only issue [unintelligible] uh, a [sic] Ordinance deals wit [sic] is that when, uh, when, uh, after debate, after public comment, that a motion is made you only require a simple majority.”

Daniela then mentioned that she had an “underlining [sic] concern” and wanted to “bring clarity,” because she didn’t want the “perception out there” that they were “trying to mute each other’s voices, or trying to mute each other’s time.”

Hans responded by stumbling and mumbling, “There’s no intent or purpose in fact in respect to the issue of, of limiting debate, that would require obviously a vote of the Commission.  They, they, there’s no, uh, intent I think from the beginnin [sic], uh, there’s, debate has to occur under Robert [sic] Rules of Order before question is, uh, eh, is, is discuss [sic] or voted on.  Secondedly [sic], this Commission adopted a policy that provide [sic] this is what you’re doing now as, as we speak, provide [sic] each member of the City Commission wit [sic] opportunity to speak, uh, er, I believe up to twenty minutes on a [sic] item.  And this is what the exercise that this organization does not remove that requirement.”

Despite the Mayor’s fervent hopes that Daniela Jean would be an independent thinker and not always vote with her three comrades on the dais, the truth is she was recruited to run for this seat precisely for the purpose of ramming their dangerous agenda through.  They needed a guaranteed fourth vote, and they were assured that she could be counted on.  It didn’t matter who completed their circle of corruption, but Daniela just happened to be the flavor of the month of one of the puppetmasters, so she just happened to draw the lucky straw.  So far, she’s fulfilling their mission.

McKenzie is the New Phyllis

We’re old enough to remember when former Commissioner Phyllis Smith was the resident bloviator on the dais.  Well, move over, Phyllis, ‘cuz McKenzie’s here to keep your seat warm.

As everyone knows by now, Commissioner McKenzie Fleurimond loves the sound of his own voice.  So much so, that he can be counted on to interrupt every Commission meeting at least ten or fifteen times by blurting out “a point of order,” “a point of privilege,” “a point of clarification,” “a point of what time’s dinner?”

By the time it was his turn to actually speak on an item, he’s already bloviated about all his pointless points, and yet somehow he still fills his allotted ten minutes being the spokesmouth for, and kissing the ass of, Michael Joseph, who rarely speaks for himself.

McKenzie put on his Pretend Lawyer Hat and said, “I want to assure you and all my colleagues and those watching that I dissected this Ordinance completely.  And that’s the reason why I can support the Ordinance because it doesn’t take away my right to speak, it doesn’t take away your right to speak, and it doesn’t take away the rights of the residents to speak.”

And then McKenzie stepped in a steaming pile of you-know-what by bringing up the whole supermajority fiasco.

He then put on his Pretend Math Teacher Hat and said, “So when we’re talking about supermajorities, if you’re on a Commission of five, a supermajority is 3.3.  If a supermajority is 3.3, you have to round to the nearest whole number, okay?  In the case of 3.3 the nearest whole number would be three.  In the case of 3.3, you look at the number that’s after the decimal.  If it’s less than five you round to the nearest whole number.”

By this time, Barbara Kramer could no longer contain her uncontrollable laughter at his acute stupidity.

Undeterred, McKenzie kept right on putting his foot in his mouth.

“In the case of seven people, you have a majority, a supermajority of 4.6.  In that case, the number after the decimal is higher than five.  And that’s the reason why on this Commission a supermajority would be five, Okay?  So, in essence our supermajority on the Commission of seven is five people, okay?  Um, it’s not six, it’s not seven, it’s five people, and that’s what we require for a quorum as well.  And, so it’s about rounding to the nearest whole number.  That’s how, I believe if, Ms. Ryan, I don’t know if that’s how you came to your conclusion but that’s what I’ve researched, it’s all about rounding to the nearest whole number, are you, uh, correct me or, um, let me know if I’m wrong.”

Oh, okay.  He “researched.”

To no one’s surprise, Ottinot Law, P.A. employee Pamela Ryan agreed, “That’s how I came to it as well.”

Folks, we can’t make this stuff up.

Apparently, in North Miami Beach, terminal stupidity is the rule rather than the exception.

McKenzie Fleurimond loves hearing his own voice, and he especially gets off on lecturing Mayor Tony DeFillipo, even when he’s wrong, which is most of the time.

Nevertheless, he put on his Phyllis Smith Hat and continued to bloviate as he admonished the Mayor, “If someone calls the question and they’re out of order, you don’t have to recognize them.  But we have to remember what being in order is.  Being in order is allowing people to comment, allowing people to speak, giving them their allotted time, and after that’s been done, then someone can motion to call the question.”

Okay, we gotta stop right here and now and educate way too many elected officials on the proper use of the word “motion,” because every time we hear some idiot on the dais saying, “I motion to …” we want to scream!

Grammar Lesson of the Day

• The word “motion” is a noun, which is a word that refers to a person, place, or thing.  A noun functions as the subject or object of a verb.
• A verb, on the other hand, is the part of speech that indicates an action.
• Accordingly, one may make (verb) a motion (noun); or one may move to (verb) propose something; but one can never motion to do anything because nouns are not action words!

SO JUST STOP DOING IT AND START USING PROPER GRAMMAR, DAMMIT!

And, while we’re at it, McKenzie, the correct terminology is “call the previous question.”

You’ll need to remember that the next time you abuse the privilege.

Now that we’re all clear on those crucial points, keep in mind that the City of North Miami Beach is now being run by complete idiots.

It’s only going to get worse once the Thug of North Miami, Arthur “Duke” Sorey, becomes your City Manager.

At this point, the only way to save your City from total destruction is to organize a recall election to remove one or more of these idiots from office.

North Miami Beach residents deserve better.

Stephanie