The Exposito appeal hearing...

I'd like to preface today's post by saying I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to transferring audio recordings off my phone to my computer then on to YouTube.  I have to admit, I've been trying to do this for nearly a week with little to no success, that is till last night when I finally managed to upload all 35 minutes of the hearing to YouTube.

While the various media outlets had there own interpretation of what went on at the hearing, now you can listen to it yourselves and draw your own conclusions.  Although I've uploaded the recordings to YouTube, there are no videos, just audio.  First we'll start with Exposito attorney Steven Wisotsky's opening argument...

Now you'll hear City of Miami assistant attorney John Greco make the case for the city...

And last but not least attorney Wisotsky's rebuttal before the three judge panel...

So there you have it.  We'll discuss tomorrow...

How to fire a police chief in the City of Miami...

With all the dispute recently regarding former City of Miami Police Chief Miguel Exposito appealing the city commissions decision to fire him, I think it's important to take a look at one of Exposito's main arguments for getting his job back, the fact that the commission didn't convene and render judgement in the time period specified by the City of Miami Charter Section 26.
First, let's take a look at the city charter...
Miguel Exposito City of Miami Charter Section 26
Specifically, the most important part is as follows...

Sec. 26- Suspension and removal of chief of police and fire chief.
The city manager shall have the exclusive right to suspend the chief of police and fire chief for incompetence, neglect of duty, immorality, drunkenness, failure to obey orders given by proper authority, or for any other just and reasonable cause.  If either of such chiefs be so suspended the city manager shall forthwith certify the fact, together with the cause of suspension, to the commission who within five (5) days from the date of receipt of such notice, shall proceed to hear such charges and render judgement thereon, which judgement shall be final.

That bit of the city charter is one of the main arguments that Exposito and his legal team are using to invalidate the city commission's ruling against him...

...the commission who within five (5) days from the date of receipt of such notice, shall proceed to hear such charges and render judgement thereon...

There's very little room for interpretation there, once the commissions notified of the suspension, they have five days to hold a hearing and render judgement.  Simple right?  So simple that during the termination hearing, City of Miami Commissioner Francis Suarez, who happens to be an attorney, even went so far as to say that if the chief didn't agree with the commissions findings, he could go back appeal and be reinstated because the commission didn't abide by section 26 of the city charter.  So wtf?  Aren't these rules in place for a reason?  Strictly based on the letter of the law, Mr Exposito should be entitled to get his job back since the commission didn't convene and render judgement within the five day period as outlined in the charter.  Whether the court who heard his case last week will rule in his favor or not is a different story.


I'm currently trying to upload my recordings of last weeks hearing online, if I'm successful we'll get to hear first hand both Exposito and the City of Miami's arguments k;in this case.