Offshore Drilling: A Slippery Subject - 01/31/10

Apparently, our local lawmakers don't have enough to do this week to keep Deerfield Beach safe and to make sure the city's roads and infrastructure are in good repair. On Tuesday night, it will consider this item: "A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida, opposing the approval of oil drilling in Florida’s waters in areas other than those already approved for oil leasing and oil exploration."

Noting the importance of the beaches and tourism to Florida and the risk for environmental damage, especially in the Gulf of Mexico; further noting an element of that risk "is the wastewater [that drilling platforms] routinely discharge which contains drilling fluids and heavy metals including mercury;" and finally noting the possible "catastrophic damage" that could occur to offshore drilling rigs by a storm, it is to be resolved:

We strongly encourage all elected officials at the County, State and Federal levels to oppose legislative attempts to allow offshore oil drilling expansion past the areas already approved for pre-leasing, leasing and oil production activities and to take immediate steps to encourage and assist in the development of alternative sources of energy.

The resolution, incidentally, is posted on the consent agenda, implying that there is no debate to be had. By no coincidence, someone will appear on the "written requests" before the formal business starts to speak on the same subject of offshore drilling and to promote a related event along the beach called Hands Across the Sand.

The speaker will be Deerfield resident Kathleen E. Aterno, who also happens to be Florida Director of Clean Water Action (CWA).

CWA is a Washington, D.C-based lobbying group, which was seeded by Ralph Nader's task force on water pollution in the '70's. The group has or has had ties with Friends of the Earth, another lobbying group which has been around for some 40 years. The Washington Post, in 1999, called the FOE the farthest to the political left of mainstream green groups in the U.S. ("From Fringe To Political Mainstream," by Michael Weiskopf, April 19, 1990).

In any event, it was Ms. Aterno who proposed the offshore drilling resolution now before the city commission.

Nobody cherishes the idea of oil drilling platforms off the shores of Deerfield Beach. I don't at least. Ms. Aterno's resolution raises legitimate concerns about oil spills, environmental issues, and hurricane risks.

On the other hand, people don't much like the idea of ever increasing gas prices, dependence on foreign oil, and the implications for national security. The 1.76 billion acres of continental shelf is an attractive area for exploitation of currently untapped sources of oil and natural gas. In fact, a Rasmussen poll conducted in December 2009 found that 68% of U.S. voters believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed. Just 20% opposed drilling for oil off the coast. The poll found that most voters also favored development of alternative energy sources, along with offshore exploration.

Of course, most of the voters surveyed don't live near the coastlines that could be at risk. Suppose, however, that there was an acceptable level of risk for offshore drilling.

Offshore rigs currently stand within 25 miles of Pensacola. There has never been a significant spill. There are still risks, of course, but even some environmentalists admit that improved technology has reduced the threat of pollution in recent years. In fact, while 115 Gulf of Mexico platforms were damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, there was little spillage associated with the platforms. One reason is that automatic valves shut off the wells in case of a catastrophe.

The National Research Council states that only two percent of ocean spillage off the U.S. coast comes from offshore oil and gas drilling, while 63% comes from natural seepage and 22% from municipal and industrial waste. Drilling may in fact reduce natural seepage as it has off San Diego because it releases the pressure that drives the oil up through fissures on the ocean bottom.

In the '70's, 3.6 million barrels of oil were spilled in U.S. waters, but it was less than 500,000 barrels in the '90's, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. (Added: For the sake of comparison, the Exxon Valdez, when it ruptured in Prince William Sound in 1989, was carrying 1.26 million barrels of oil and spilled 10.8 million gallons, or about 257,000 barrels, of oil.)

According to an Internet source, most of the areas off the Florida West Coast have never been explored using modern 3D seismic techniques. Thus, how much oil and natural gas could be pumped is unknown. The Department of Energy estimates that new drilling would produce only seven percent more oil by 2030, but industry experts dispute those estimates because we don't really have hard data yet. It could be more or less. Another source claims that the greatest potential in the eastern Gulf is for natural gas production, which is considered an alternative fuel.

Offshore production has been a bustling industry in Louisiana for more than 60 years. In July 2008, it had 172 active platforms producing about 79% of the oil and 72% of the natural gas that comes from offshore in the U.S. There have been upsides and downsides. The state derives $1.5 billion annually in revenues. It also means ports, pipelines, refineries, petrochemical plants, etc. But, land-based operations are also responsible for most of the pollution associated with oil and gas production. (I can also tell you from personal experience, because my earliest political activities were in Louisiana where I went to school, that oil dominates Louisiana politics.)

Like many people, I have mixed feelings. It would be nice if we had cars that ran on water and plastics made from something other than petroleum. Most electricity would be generated by wind, water, fuel cells, and fail-safe nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, this is the real world and most of the technologies which would replace oil are years or decades away.

There are and always will be environmental risks in oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation. There are risks without offshore drilling. How do you think crude oil gets to our shores from the Middle East? How do you think refined products get from Texas to South Florida? Are there acceptable risks and benefits that outweigh the risks?

I'm not saying we start drilling for oil off the end of the pier or even three or five miles out. I'm suggesting that the city commission not rubber stamp this resolution. The pros and cons need much greater deliberation than one supportive speech by a lobbyist.

Ethics Committee Almost Finished - 01/30/10

The Deerfield Beach Ethics Advisory Committee is slated to complete its work at a final meeting on February 10th, 2010. This meeting will also be the first official opportunity for public comment on the proposed revisions of the ethics code before it's submitted to the city commission.

The Broward County Ethics Commission, which is drafting a code of ethics for county government under a voter mandate, is also winding up its work this month. Under its charter, the BCEC is required to finish its code and submit a proposal to the county commission in March. The county commission then must enact the ethics code into law exactly as presented in the projet, or call for a referendum on the code in November.

Our ethics committee is not under any rigid time constraints and could request an extension of its charter from the city commission if needed.

I don't know if the citizens of Deerfield Beach are interested in honest government or not. Only five or six citizens attended the meetings of the ethics committee on a regular basis. Mayor Noland attended all or most of the meetings and Commissioner Miller was present for part of at least one meeting.

I have learned that at one BCEC meeting only two people from the public attended. That's from the entire county. By that standard, our ethics meetings were almost mobbed. However, the BCEC allowed public comment at each meeting. It also heard from public officials and experts. The Deerfield Beach counterpart did not formally take public comment at any of its meetings, although it did hear from Norman Ostrau, a former chairman of the state ethics commission; and Tom Connick, the principal author of the ethics code.

The citizens of Deerfield Beach, in order to protect the health, welfare and safety of its residents, and promote honorable, efficient and responsive government, hereby adopt a revised Home Rule Charter in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of Florida. - Preamble of the City Charter of the City of Deerfield Beach

Whatever the public's interest, it is pretty obvious that some of our public officials are not interested in honorable government or a strong code of ethics. If they were they would not have sought to repeal or to rewrite the ethics code passed by the previous commission only six months after its enactment.

The only major defect I see in the code revealed over those six months is that the requirements for submission of a complaint are a bit too informal, which invites abusive or at least sloppy complaints. More on this later.

First, I want to address, once again, section 2(o), the gift section. This section states that public officials shall not solicit or accept gifts from most of the people who do business with the city government.

This is the part of the current provision which is most relevant to my discussion here [Code of Ordinances § 2-502(o)]:

A regulated officer, his or her spouse or domestic partner, child or step-child, parent, or member of his or her household, shall not solicit or accept a gift as defined in F.S. § 112.312 from any person or entity that a regulated officer knows, or has reason to believe, has received or sought a land use plan amendment, development permit (other than a building permit) or contract or the payment of city funds from the city within the previous three years.

This is the proposed revision adopted by the committee at its December meeting (added language underscored):

A regulated officer, his or her spouse or domestic partner, child or step-child, parent, or member of his or her household, shall not accept a gift as defined in F.S. § 112.312 in excess of $50 (during any calendar year) from any person or entity that a regulated officer knows, or has reason to believe, has received or sought a land use plan amendment, development permit (other than a building permit) or contract or the payment of city funds from the city within the previous two years or within six months of the date the regulated officer assumed his or her respective office, whichever is shorter.

The "don't ask, don't take" rule in the current code is quite unique. Most ethics codes set a limit on the value of gifts, but do not prohibit "small" gifts. State law requires officials to report gifts over $100.

I can't think of a single reason why an honest public official would accept, let alone ask for, a gift of any value from anyone who has an interest in the outcome of a decision in which that official has a say. In effect, the proposed change, to allow officials to accept up to $50 worth of gifts per year from each person who would otherwise be prohibited, provides wiggle room for officials who are not so honest; and it also provides opportunity for abuse.

The words "solicit or" ("A regulated officer ... shall not solicit or accept a gift....") were stricken from the proposed revision (at the suggestion of the author of this website) because this language in the proposed revision as written would have implied that officials could lawfully solicit gifts up to the amount of $50 per year.

If the committee proposes to change this rule and allow officials to accept up to $50 worth of gifts per year, and the city commission adopts this radical revision of the code, it must explain to the public two things:

One: How is a citizen to know how much a commissioner receives from a developer or contractor per year, let alone from his corporations, shareholders, officers, wives, children, and other principals or representatives?

The adoption of this revision has the effect, as a practical matter, of repealing this section of the code.

Two: How do commissioners explain to their constituents that they are entitled to gifts and other perks from people whose intent is to influence their votes and actions on important matters?

During the committee discussion about this section, one of the members said that surely our officials cannot be swayed by a small gift or doodad.

This is simply naive. When a contractor or developer offers a gift to a commissioner, the intent is to gain the favor of that official and to influence or reward his vote in almost every case.

And the acceptance of that gift is not honest or in the public interest. Clearly, the gift serves only the personal interests of the official and the giver.

This could be said also of most campaign contributions, but these, at least, are reported regardless of the amount of the contribution.

Other examples mentioned during this debate included the case of a developer or contractor who just happens upon an official at the diner and picks up the tab on a glass of ice tea, a seemingly innocuous gesture. One of the committee members raised a situation where an official and contractor or developer were friends or neighbors and customarily exchanged food or items that are defined as gifts by the code at cook-outs and other social events.

Of course, these are situations that are possible. But the code is intended to address the more realistic and damaging case where the contractor or developer wines and dines the official at JB's, not to mention Howard, Tommy, and other relatives or friends. Is anyone so unrealistic as to believe that three-martini lunches are merely "friendly" gestures?

If the committee persists, it needs to do two other things, in my opinion. Section 2(o) needs to prohibit the solicitation of any gift or payment from any person having business with the city. And it needs to require that any gift of any value be reported, just as campaign contributions must be reported under current law.

Maybe if a public official is required to disclose all gifts to the public, he may think twice before accepting one from a city contractor or developer and having to explain it to his constituents.

A few other issues:

A clever and dishonest official could evade the provisions of the revised section 2(o) by "deconstructing" the gift or aggregate of gifts from different sources that represent the same interest.

As I read the revised section, the official might receive a gift from Jack Builder, a developer; from Jack, Jr; from his wife; from Builder, Inc., his corporation; from his dog and from myriad shareholders and lobbyists representing Jack and Builder, Inc. So the aggregate of gifts could be $100 per year, $150, or a lot more. And remember, also, there are no reporting requirements; the chances for the public to find out about this strategy are just about zero.

(Note: this is probably not the way the section is intended to be interpreted.)

It might also be possible for an official to evade campaign contribution laws by accepting "gifts" without reporting requirements. The contributor "donates" a certain amount to the official, who gives the money to his own campaign, without reporting the actual source of the money.

Finally, with respect to section 2(o), there is no solicitation provision as the current proposal is written. Any solicitation of a gift could appear to imply a promise of something in return. So the official "informs" Jack Builder (of Builder, Inc.) that the commission has recently enacted a law which allows him to accept gifts up to $50 per year (wink,wink) without actually proposing a quid pro quo (which would be bribery and violate state law).

On another matter, not relating to gifts, the committee members raised concerns about "abuse of process" or "frivolous" complaints by some ill-intended complainants, which result in needless costs to the city and, of course, tarnish the reputation of the respondent officials. "Frivolous" in this sense does not mean a complaint found to be without merit, but one in which the complainant knows the complaint is without merit and files it with malicious intent.

Responding to these concerns, the city attorney drafted an elaborate procedure which was designed to be independent of political pressures and to assure fairness to all parties. My concerns were that procedures to collect costs from a complainant, depending on what they were, could have a chilling effect on potential good-faith complaints and could also raise due process issues, which I will not detail here.

Under the current code, there are no formal requirements for filing a complaint which kicks-off the process of investigation and hearing of an alleged violation of the ethics code. Complaints can be filed by e-mail. You or I, conceivably, could create an e-mail account using a fictional name or someone else's name and file a complaint; nobody's the wiser.

I proposed and the committee accepted a different, but very simple and reasonable, approach. It will require that the complaint be filed under oath or affirmation.

Therefore, a complaint may not be filed anonymously or by e-mail or falsely in someone else's name. It should, without having a chilling effect on legitimate complainants, discourage intentionally "frivolous" complaints.

Groundless, as well as frivolous, complaints might also be discouraged if the burden of proving that the hearing officer, if appointed, would be competent to hear and decide the complaint fell to the complainant. In other words, a complainant could be required to cite in the complaint the specific provision of the code which the complainant alleges was violated. Obviously, if the complaint (even if it had merit in some other forum or in a college ethics seminar) is not within the "jurisdiction" of the hearing officer, it would be legally insufficient and a waste of time, at some cost to the city.

Incidentally, a requirement of this nature was incorporated in the recently enacted ethics commission law in Palm Beach County.

This article does not address all of the changes likely to be proposed by the ethics committee. Some proposals are useful, as, for example, this change to another part of section 2(o) (again, added language underscored):

Entity includes employees, shareholders, members, partners, officers and directors of the entity, or any person who for compensation has sought during the previous two years to encourage passage, modification or defeat of any proposal, measure or recommendation by any regulated officer.

This revision brings lobbyists into the prohibition, in addition to persons or entities "that a regulated officer knows, or has reason to believe, has received or sought a land use plan amendment, development permit... or contract or the payment of city funds from the city."

The lobbyist ordinance, which requires lobbyists to register, was enacted after the ethics code. This amendment brings the two laws into sync.

From the Archives

Could Mutual Benefits Be Keechl's
"Black Eye"? - 04/25/09

I wrote this article last year about District 4 county rep Ken Keechl, now Broward County mayor, and his connection with the Mutual Benefits scandal. I wrote "there could be further revelations." In the past week, new information has surfaced that Keechl may have misused funds from his campaign treasury. Will this impact the November election? Parts of Deerfield Beach are in Keechl's district. For that reason, a rerun of this article is appropriate.

This article also discusses briefly Steve Geller, the former state senator now running for county commission, and pro-development Democrat. Since this article, it has come to light that Geller received a lot of money from Ponzi-schemer Scott Rothstein. The Rothstein affair has somewhat overshadowed the Mutual Benefits case in recent weeks.

A few years ago practically no one had heard of the doctrine of honest services fraud or Mutual Benefits Corporation. Now HSF and Mutual Benefits are part of the everyday political lingo of South Florida, and local politicians are scared to death.

Public ethics is commonly seen as a group of specific legal proscriptions provided for in state or local laws: for example, don't vote if you have a conflict of interest. This is the underlying philosophy of most codes of ethics applicable to public officials and employees.

Another way to look at public ethics is as a civic obligation inherent in public office. Or, as a U.S. appellate court stated in a 1999 decision: "Public officials inherently owe a fiduciary duty to the public to make governmental decisions in the public's best interest."

In this view, a public official has the duty to provide honest services while in office and to do his best to assure public confidence in the government. The public trust is the imperative. What is in the public trust is determined by prevailing civic values like integrity and professionalism.

As I shall explain further below, the potential reach of HSF as provided in law is very broad and may include conduct not specifically prohibited by law (as in a code of ethics). However, there is no settled jurisprudence on this question as of now.

A document prepared by the Alaska Citizens for Ethical Government summarized this issue:

Although the “paradigm case of honest services fraud is the bribery of a public official,” the statute has been used to address a wide range of conduct that goes beyond the paradigm. [Thus, the 12 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals] have widely differing -- and arguably conflicting -- views of how the statute is properly interpreted. Because of the expansion of the statute’s reach, the split among the circuits may continue to widen, and the limits of the statute may be difficult to discern.

No one, to my knowledge, has accused Vice Mayor Ken Keechl of not giving honest services as a public official. However, a brewing series of cases involving securities and honest services fraud could ensnare Keechl politically. Keechl, a Democrat, represents parts of Deerfield Beach on the county commission.

Keechl is expected to run for re-election in 2010 and has already collected tons of cash for his campaign. He will likely face vigorous Republican competition, probably from either Chip LaMarca or former LBTS mayor Oliver Parker. LaMarca is a Lighthouse Point commissioner and chair of the Broward Republican Party.

If there were any district where a Republican has a chance to win, it's District 4, the eastern-most district in Broward County. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2:1 in Broward, but Republicans in District 4 trail Democrats by only four percentage points. Moreover, about a third of D-4's registered voters are independents.

D-4 also offers a good opportunity for an openly gay Democrat for commission because it includes Wilton Manors, which has the third largest per capita gay population in the United States. This was part -- or maybe most -- of the story in 2006, when Keechl upset incumbent Republican commissioner Jim Scott.

What exactly is honest services fraud?

It's a federal crime which was used to prosecute a number of Palm Beach county officials. HSF was the basis of the high-profile prosecution of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2006. It has also been used to prosecute a case involving a public pension fund and a number of pay-to-play schemes.

Rumors abound -- which I believe are true -- that the feds are now looking closely at Broward, especially in light of the Mutual Benefits scandal (more on this later) and the connection between this case and some prominent Broward County politicians, including Ken Keechl.

Honest services fraud is a type of mail fraud in federal law. Mail fraud is fraud or attempt to defraud using the mail or almost any type of interstate wire communication, including phone or Internet. A brief history: In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that schemes to defraud citizens of an intangible right to honest government services by public officials were not encompassed by the mail and wire fraud statute as then written (McNally v. U.S.). Thereafter, Congress enacted § 1346, Title 18 of the U.S. Code, specifically for the purpose of overruling McNally.

§ 1346 is pretty direct. It provides that "For the purposes of [the mail fraud law], the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

§ 1346 is also very broad and this has been the basis of many of the challenges to the statute. So far the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have not been moved by the vagueness argument, and this is one reason why local public officials are so nervous. Because of the disinterest of local prosecutors in public corruption in the past, officials are used to the idea that they can do just about anything unless it is an out-and-out crime like bribery. Thus the possibility of prosecution under HSF -- unknown in its potential reach -- has got some official's knickers in a twist. If Broward County officials have problems with the concept of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety (which is provided in a county ordinance), as reported, how can they understand something as abstract as honest services fraud?

The Mutual Benefits case

Many readers know about the Mutual Benefits case. This was Broward County's mini-version of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. Actually, it wasn't so mini, as it involved nearly a billion dollars and 30,000 investors, according to the Department of Justice.

For those readers who have lost track of the case, we offer a refresher course, and how at least one county official was possibly involved with it. Then we'll get around to Mr. Keechl.

Mutual Benefits Corporation was a viatical settlement operation. Joel Steinger, a Fort Lauderdale resident and a close friend of former state Senator Steve Geller, was a principal of the company. A viatical contract is one of those deals where a senior citizen or terminally ill person sells his life insurance policy to investors at a price discounted from the face value of the policy. The investors pay the premiums and get the money when the insured, or viator, dies. The bulk of Mutual Benefit's viators, according to one source, were AIDS patients. This was one of the company's problems: because of medical advances that prolong the life of AIDS patients, the company often miscalculated when the viators would die. Thus, the company used money from new investors to cover the extended premiums on policies held by older investors.

In 2004, the SEC and federal marshals raided Mutual Benefit's offices and shut it down. The company was accused of running a Ponzi scheme and with several violations of securities laws. It was also suspected of money laundering.

Joel Steinger and other principals were indicted in December, 2008. This is not the first time for Steinger; he was convicted of wire fraud in 1981.

Stacy Ritter

The Broward County official most closely involved with the Mutual Benefits case is County Mayor Stacy Ritter, whose husband, Russ Klenet, was the lobbyist for Mutual Benefits. When Mrs. Klenet was a state legislator, she voted to approve a bill which contained a rider designed to protect Steinger's company from regulatory scrutiny. This obscure amendment was attached to a complex piece of legislation as a result of the efforts of Mr. Klenet on behalf of Mutual Benefits.

Further, Mutual Benefits paid Mr. and Mrs. Klenet handsomely for their representation and paid for extensive renovations to the Klenet's home in Parkland. Depositions related to civil suits in the case revealed that the $100,000 house renovations were a bonus to the Klenets made on the suggestion of Mr. Klenet himself. This "bonus" was paid before Mayor Ritter's vote in the legislature. Her vote, therefore, is suspect and could inspire further investigation by federal authorities. It could already be happening.

(It should be noted that the bill passed the House with a vote of 111-1, so that Ritter's vote was not in any sense decisive.)

In fact, the Klenets may have had an even deeper involvement in the Mutual Benefits case. According to a claim made in a civil suit filed last year, Klenet borrowed around $ 1 million from the domestic partner of Steinger's brother, also a principal in Mutual Benefits, to buy another viatical company. The law suit alleges that Klenet then sold the company, but never repaid the loan. Also, in addition to the bonus paid to Klenet in the form of renovations to his house, he and has wife, Mayor Ritter, got some other "mutual benefits" from Steinger which are detailed in numerous news reports.

Steve Geller

Another Broward County politician implicated in the case is Joel Steinger's bosom buddy, Steve Geller. Geller allegedly secured Klenet his job as lobbyist for Mutual Benefits.

Geller is a former State Senator who is now running for county commission against veteran commissioner Sue Gunzburger in District 6. Geller is one of the most pro-development politicians in Broward County. It was Geller who tried to sneak legislation through the state legislature that would have effectively eliminated county oversight over coastal development. Apparently Mr. Geller is an expert at sneaky amendments.

All of these relationships -- the Klenets with Steinger, Steinger with Geller, Geller with the Klenets -- against the background of Mutual Benefits' history of fraud and lawlessness are the architecture of a criminal enterprise in which public officials were involved. In addition to many securities law violations, Mutual Benefits and its subsidiaries have been accused in a class action suit with diverting new investor funds to cover shortfalls on the funds escrowed to cover life insurance premiums on policies assigned to earlier investors (in other words, ran a Ponzi scheme); misleading investors; commingling funds; failing to disclose Steinger's criminal conviction to investors; and selling securities through unlicensed agents. On top of this, Mutual Benefits may have used public officials like Stacy Ritter to advance and protect their interests in Tallahassee.

Ken Keechl

Ken Keechl's involvement with this corrupt enterprise was on a different level and was prior to his entry into politics as a candidate or public official. Keechl acted on behalf of Mutual Benefits in a number of civil actions, and continued to act as its legal representative after the company came under investigation. The scope of Keechl's work for Mutual Benefits is covered in some detail by Bob Norman in a New Times article which is available online.

But, good lawyers sometimes represent bad clients. Attorneys often work for unpopular clients and causes. At the time he did this, Keechl worked in a firm that had been hired to represent Mutual Benefits in certain civil actions. The firm also acted as Mutual Benefits' outside corporate counsel, but Keechl mostly dealt with the law suits. So the unknown factor is what, if anything, Keechl knew about the illegal activities of this client at the time he represented them in court. He denies involvement.

Still, it's hard to believe he did not know something in light of what's happened. What's happened is that Keechl's law partner, Michael McNerney, who worked closely with him on these lawsuits, has been charged by federal authorities along with Steinger and other defendants in the Mutual Benefits case. According to the Justice Department, McNerney "assisted MBC [Mutual Benefits] with the marketing of its fraudulent investment by meeting with investors in his Fort Lauderdale office and encouraging them to purchase MBC investments."

On the other hand (as far as I know), there have been no official complaints of wrongdoing with respect to Keechl's practice as an attorney before he assumed office, including his representation of Mutual Benefits. Keechl was not named in a lawsuit filed against the Brinkley, McNerney law firm by Mutual Benefits investors, which was settled out of court; and was not named in the indictments.

Nonetheless, there could be negative political fallout for Mr. Keechl if Republicans care to make an issue of it in the election next year. Reporter Norman's take on this story is that Keechl's representation of Mutual Benefits was as scummy as the client he represented.

Unlike city elections, county elections are partisan. Republicans in 2010 will be gunning for Keechl to regain the D-4 seat. With the indictments of Steinger and others associated with Mutual Benefits, and the possible investigation of Ritter and her husband in connection with this case, the scandal could be high profile news for a while.

I can think of no good reason why Republicans would not go the full distance to make certain that voters know about Keechl's past connection to the Mutual Benefits scandal.

Is it fair? Most attorneys who have been in practice for a while have represented at least one unsavory client. Both sides of the issue were played out in this Sun-Sentinel article by Vanessa Blum (10/28/06) when Keechl's connection to the fraudulent company was raised by Jim Scott during a 2006 campaign debate:

Keechl called the attack "irrelevant" and a "desperate attempt" by Scott to change the subject. "As a lawyer, I represented hundreds of clients," he said. "What does this have to do with the future of Broward County?" Judith Stern, a campaign consultant for Scott, said voters should know Keechl's former law firm paid $10 million to settle a class action suit stemming from its representation of Mutual Benefits. "This guy keeps on attacking Jim's ethics and Jim's integrity and fails to disclose what went on with his own practice of law," Stern said. "You can't have it both ways. You can't say your credentials that make you qualified as a candidate come from managing a law firm and then try to distance yourself when something happens to your firm," [Reid]Cocalis [an attorney and registered Democrat] said. "I think it's a little hypocritical." Keechl said if his client was engaging in a crime, he never saw evidence of it. "They were entitled to be represented and they were. That's what lawyers do," he said. Lawyers representing aggrieved Mutual Benefits investors said Brinkley McNerney partners knew the company made false statements to investors and that executives were secretly pocketing millions of dollars. [Keechl was a partner.] Miami attorney Michael Tein, who represents [the Brinkley McNerney law firm], said the decision to settle was made by insurers "as a matter of convenience" and does not mean Keechl or other firm lawyers did anything wrong. "I think it's irresponsible and reprehensible for Ken's opponents to even suggest he did anything wrong simply because he represented Mutual Benefits," Tein said. "Any line drawing between the firm and the investigation into this former client is absolutely misguided." Jacksonville attorney Henry Coxe III, president of the Florida Bar Association, called it "fundamentally unfair" to attack lawyers who run for office based on their clients. "Any attorney's obligation is to aggressively represent his or her client," he said. "If the reverse were the case, many, many people and companies would go without counsel, which isn't the way our system is organized." Not everyone agrees. Samuel Popkin, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, said the issue is relevant and raises questions about Keechl's judgment. "Either he didn't know what his client was up to or he didn't care," Popkin said. "I don't know which is worse." [Some portions of the article are omitted.]

The difference, especially, between then and now is that now indictments have been handed down. Keechl's former law partner and co-worker has been named as a defendant in the case. This implies that Keechl's law firm (of which he was partner and not a mere gofer) was more involved in the messy parts of this story than we knew at the time of the 2006 election.

So will his involvement with Mutual Benefits be his "black eye" in the election next year? Between the now now and the now in November, 2010, there could be further revelations. I doubt there will ever be a revelation that would completely erase the suspicion in the minds of skeptics that Keechl was more than an innocent bystander in this affair.

This website is independent commentary. It is not associated with any political organization, candidate or campaign. We fully support the right of free speech and press and the right to privacy. We oppose censorship in any form, but do not condone plagiarism, defamation, incivility, abuse, or the use of the Internet to threaten, bully or intimidate public officials, candidates for public office or potential candidates, or political activists.