On January 23 and 24, 2019, the City of North Miami’s Personnel Board finally met to hear the appeal of former Assistant Budget Director Terry Henley’s termination.

And, boy, was it entertaining!

For your reading pleasure, you can read the full transcripts by clicking these links:

• Day 1
• Day 2

Let’s review the testimony given on the first day of the hearing.

(Editor’s Note:  We apologize in advance for the length of this blog post.  But, show us some mercy.  It’s taken us the better part of a week to review the transcripts, make sense of it all, and attempt to condense it for your entertainment pleasure.)

Ready, set, pop!

Blame it all on the blogger

Outside counsel for the city, Brett Schneider of Boca Raton, came out swinging by attempting to discredit this blogger for reporting the facts.

In fact, this blogger irked Mr. Schneider so much, he mentioned “blogs” and “bloggers” five times alone in his opening statement.

Mr. Schneider began on page 8 of the transcript by kvetching:

“This is an interesting case that we’re here for. And when I say it’s interesting, it’s interesting only that this case has already appeared to have been tried through the bloggers and through the media.

I have been through several hearings before this board. I’ve never seen this type of interest in this hearing, and I wanted to raise that because I think it’s important for the board to understand your decision at this hearing should be based on the evidence and the testimony put before you during this hearing.

Anything that anybody has read or heard by bloggers or the media is really not relevant for purposes of this proceeding.

And what I also wanted to make clear at the outset is quite simply, this is actually an extremely simple case. Extremely simple case.

This case relates to the City’s termination of Mr. Terry Henley who was the former assistant budget director for the City of North Miami. There’s a lot of background noise that Mr. Henley has tried to create through his attorney, through bloggers, et cetera, about allegations of inappropriate conduct by City staff or claimed whistleblower violations or claimed fraud in the budget process.

And what I can tell you is that this case has nothing to do with any of those things; this case is very simple.”

While we’re flattered that Mr. Schneider gave us top billing in this drama, we are not the story.

We do, however, agree that this is a simple case.

Once again, the City of North Miami has fired an exemplary employee for not being a “team player.”

Which, in North Miami, means refusing to participate in, and exposing the rampant corruption going on at the highest levels of government at City Hall.

Apparently, the city’s case is so weak, it’s legal team resorted to the lame defense of first attacking the media.

Then, as usual, attacking the whistleblower.

Impugn, Discredit, Impeach and Destroy – the North Miami Way

From pages 11 through 28 of the transcript, lawyer Schneider refuted all of Terry Henley’s revelations about North Miami’s fraudulent budget by claiming that he’s a lazy, incompetent boob, who had to be constantly prodded into doing the job for which he was hired.  He claimed that Terry’s boss, Deputy City Manager Arthur “Duke” Sorey, literally had to hold his hand to walk him through each and every task.

Furthermore, Schneider said, “Mr. Henley was an exempt employee here, meaning that he was not paid hourly; he was paid for a job. And despite the fact that his job frequently required him to work longer hours, he would come into work at 9:00 or 9:30 and leave at 5:00 every day. The guy just did not want to work hard.”

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the lawyer kept insinuating that  Terry Henley was incompetent, inefficient and insubordinate throughout his entire opening statement.

Schneider ended his rambling rant with, “At the end of the day, he didn’t perform; he didn’t get the job done. He was given lots of notice in advance; he couldn’t perform, and he was fired.”

Cool story, bro!

Next up was Terry Henley’s attorney, William R. Amlong, Esq., whose opening statement begins on page 28 of the transcript.

Mr. Amlong then hit the members of the Personnel Board with carefully aimed truth bombs, starting with:

“The City fired Mr. Henley on allegations by Mr. Sorey that he was incompetent, inefficient, and insubordinate. Under your civil service rules, the City needs to prove by substantial, competent evidence as the standard in Florida, that Mr. Henley was incompetent, inefficient or insubordinate.

They can’t do that. What Mr. Henley was incompetent of doing was sufficiently aiding Mr. Sorey and Mr. Spring in covering up massive overspending by the City way in excess of the budget.”

Amlong immediately pointed to the fact that in August, 2017 his client had warned of a looming $4.7 million budget deficit, which actually came to fruition as advertised on the city’s own website, Understanding North Miami’s Finances.

Mr. Amlong then closed with:

“So is there incompetence and inefficiency going on here? Yes. It takes incompetency and inefficiency to preside silently over a budget that is 4.7 million out of whack.

That wasn’t Mr. Henley’s doing; that was the doing of Mr. Sorey and Mr. Spring.

Mr. Henley kept putting in writing to Mr. Spring who did not want to see it in writing, to Mr. Sorey who did not want to see it in writing. All these numbers he was putting together, all these numbers showing that indeed when you use real numbers, this city, he knew back in July of 2018, was going to start October 1st more than $4 million in the hole.

He put that in writing over and over and over again, and Mr. Spring did not want to hear it. And therefore, the day after the second budget meeting, he was told take this money and go away.

Mr. Henley is not incompetent, inefficient, or insubordinate. Maybe he’s insubordinate because he kept putting in writing what the truth was.

Mr. Sorey and Mr. Spring are saying it’s a bad message. Let’s kill the messenger.”

Liar, liar!

The first witness on the stand was none other than Arthur “Duke” Sorey, who continued trashing Terry Henley, claiming he was a horrible employee from the day he was hired.

When the city’s other lawyer, Brooke Ehrlich asked Duke about Terry’s performance, he said:

“It was lackluster. I mean, he did what I I had to write him a lot. Terry is an employee who needs motivation; you have to motivate him. So he did what he was supposed to do after I wrote him and made him do what he was supposed to do, but I can’t say he didn’t do his job. I just had to make him do his job.

Terry doesn’t like to work, and he doesn’t put in the time; he rushes through stuff, so it was always errors, and it’s just trying to get stuff done, you know, and not caring about what you do.”

And yet, despite his complaints, the Duke promoted him anyway.

When asked why, he responded:

“I had a five-year plan to become the Deputy City Manager or the City Manager, and I told Terry that when I hired him that I had a plan, and this is where I was going, and he needed to do his part, and he would be rewarded if I got up to my part if he’d just help me get to where I need to go.

So I promoted him out of loyalty.”

Loyalty?

As in the North Miami Friends & Family Plan?

Oh.

Duke Sorey, Forest Ranger

Deputy Duke kept digging that hole by blaming Terry for everything from the wrong tax notices being sent out (page 44) to poor work ethic (page 48) to wanting to be a “forest ranger” instead of a “tree counter” (page 56).

Huh?

Duke complained that Terry had the “audacity” to present a plan to balance the budget by cutting expenses and getting rid of unnecessary contract employees.

Deputy Duke then whined that because of Terry’s “errors,” he was forced to step in and take over the budget process.  When lawyer Ehrlich asked him if he spoke to Terry about it, he responded with:

“I immediately — and I’ll say doing the budget is a rough job. I know that. It requires a lot of work. A lot of stress comes with it.

This particular morning, I woke up early. Well, I mean, early for me. Not early for most people, but I woke up early, and I was here at — I’d say probably 8:45.

I went to Publix, got me a sub, and sat down at my desk with a Mountain Dew because that’s what I do when it’s budget time. I was locked in. I closed my door; I’m here for the long haul.

Today, I’m going to work and go and I’m going to find out what’s going on.

I’m starting to eat, and I’m going through this, and I’m finding this right away. I jump up out of my seat and go over to the budget office.”

We’re not sure which is funnier — Deputy Duke scarfing down a sub and a Mountain Dew at 8:45 in the morning, or his actually jumping out of his seat.

Either way, we hurt ourselves laughing.

The Duke wasn’t done yet.

Cry me a river

Deputy Duke then put on an Oscar-worthy performance, even managing to shed a few tears while lamenting:

“I spoke to Mr. Henley and his staff, and I had a few choice words. Probably a few curse words.  And it was my frustration as built as up, as I’ve been telling you for the last two years you’re not putting in the time, and you’re not working.

Now, I’m at July 30th, and I have to go back the council in a few days to present this book, and my first two pages is wrong. And you have the audacity to sit there and say you want to fire people, terminate a whole bunch of people who are going to lose their jobs.

People are going to lose their homes. This happened to the city once before. People lost their homes and a lot of stuff, and he had the audacity to say that we’re going to do that.

It was bad because Terry’s paid well. And a friend of mine. That’s what really, you know, hurt. He’s a friend.

He didn’t want to work, and for him to say he wants to fire people and know that somebody is going to lose their home or whatever, but it’s because he wasn’t going to be fired. His staff wasn’t going to be fired.

So I’m half-ass this shit, you know? It’s wrong.”

Half.  Ass.  This.  Shit?

Um, okay.

Ms. Ehrlich then asked the Duke if took any disciplinary action against Terry, to which he responded:

“I came back. I was really — I’m upset like I’m upset now, and I went back to the office and told the chief of staff what had happened. And I told her to go back over there and tell all of them to get their S and get the F out of my office.

That was it.

To leave right away, get out of the office right now because I’m going to do your work for you anyway, so go home.”

The lawyer then commiserated by saying, “I understand it’s emotional for you.”

Oh, yeah.  Almost as emotional as having to leave his uneaten Publix sub and a Mountain Dew on his desk.

Just saying.

From page 77 through 113 of the transcript, Deputy Duke continued his carefully constructed fairy tale, accusing Terry of so much wrongdoing that he was forced to fire him and have him escorted out of the building by a gaggle of North Miami Police officers.

The city’s lawyer started to ask Duke about “a series of  documents from the City of North Miami Police Department, an incident report as well as officers’ narrative reports,” but Mr. Amlong objected that it was not relevant to why client was fired.

At that point, the lawyers for both sides agreed that no evidence relating to after the day Terry was fired would be entered or used for testimony (page 114).

This verbal agreement would eventually come up and bite the city’s lawyers in the ass, as you will see in Part 2 of this series.

Here comes the BOOM!

The cross-examination of Deputy Duke by William R. Amlong, which begins on page 118 of the transcript, blows holes in every one of Duke’s lies about Terry.  It is a thing of beauty.

Mr. Amlong began grilling Deputy Duke by referencing Terry Henley’s first Performance Evaluation Report for the period of May 28, 2014 through May 28, 2015, which was signed by Arthur H. Sorey III on October 27, 2015 (page 119), and stated:

“Mr. Henley was — his attendance was above satisfactory as was his quality of work; his initiative and cooperation was outstanding. His safety was outstanding. His job knowledge was outstanding.

His personal appearance was above satisfactory. His reports and correspondence was above satisfactory. His supervisory skill was above satisfactory, and his overall evaluation was outstanding, correct?”

Duke responded, “Yes, sir.”

BOOM!

Using Duke’s own words, Mr. Amlong asked whether Terry “secured the city its first-ever “Distinguished Budget Presentation” award from the GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association).

Duke said, “Yes.”

BOOM!

He also asked Duke if Terry was nationally recognized in the GFOA’s June 2014 issue of Government Finance Review.

Duke said, “Yes.”

BOOM!

And then Mr. Amlong went in for the kill:

Amlong: He was an innovative administrator who launched a performance management to program city-wide?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong: Right?

Duke: Uh-huh.

Amlong: And he was outstanding?

Duke: Yep. Yes.

Amlong: And he got a — he got a pay raise that year?

Duke: Yes.

BOOM!

Mr. Amlong then brought up Terry’s Performance Evaluation Report for the period of July 27, 2015 through July 27, 2016, which was signed by City Manager Larry Spring on September 13, 2016 (page 122).

He continued:

Amlong: “Satisfactory in initiative and quantity of work and supervisory skill,” and asked if that was correct?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong: And above satisfactory in everything else?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong: And overall above satisfactory?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong: And during 2016, it was Mr. Spring’s perception that he deserved a merit pay increase, correct?

Duke:  Yes.

Amlong: And during that time, you also raised him up because he was promoted to acting to assistant budget director, correct?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong: And you also gave him a five percent out of class pay raise?

Duke: Yes.

BOOM!, BOOM!, AND BOOM!

Mr. Amlong then referred to Terry’s Performance Evaluation Report for the period of July 27, 2016 through July 27, 2017, which for some strange reason sat on Larry Spring’s desk for eight months before he signed it on March 9, 2018.

Amlong then noted that Spring said Terry “needed improvement in reports and correspondences,” but received an overall satisfactory rating as well as a pay raise.

He continued:

Amlong: Now, this was — spanned a period when you described Mr. Henley as being not terribly motivated, and you had to hold his hand throughout this period. Do you remember that testimony?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong: And that was under oath, correct?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong:Would you please point out to the ladies and gentlemen of the panel where in any of those three evaluations there is anything whatsoever that suggests that?

By this time, Deputy Duke must have been squirming in his seat and trying desperately to keep up with his own lies because his testimony only goes downhill from there.

Rewriting history

When Mr. Amlong asked him about the work plan that was attached to Terry’s Performance Evaluation Report signed by Larry Spring on September 13, 2016, Deputy Duke responded that the “City Manager issues work plans when people aren’t performing to their level they should be performing to, so to give them a chance, he gives them a work plan and evaluates them on a constant basis.”

Amlong: And you give them — and you give them a work plan and a pay raise at the same time?

Duke: Yeah. He did satisfactory work, but he needed a work plan because we weren’t happy with what he was doing.

Amlong: Doesn’t every department director get a work plan?

Duke: No.

This particular lie will deliciously come back to haunt the Duke on Day 2 of the hearing, so keep it in mind.

Beginning at page 125 of the transcript, Mr. Amlong grilled Deputy Duke about his assertion that “Mr. Henley demonstrated his incompetence by suggesting that there was a potential deficit of $25 million.”

Apparently, the problem wasn’t in his suggesting there was a deficit.  Terry had to go ahead and prove it!

Which about sums up the only reason why Mr. Henley was fired.

Deputy Duke then went on to claim that he “doesn’t recognize” an email Terry Henley sent regarding the budget deficit (page 128), “doesn’t recall” Terry warning him of a $3.7 million deficit in the 2018/19 budget (page 130), and “doesn’t remember” Terry talking to him about “the FY18 budget with same operations as the FY17 budget” (page 133).

But, we digress.

Lawless in North Miami

On page 149, Mr. Amlong got Duke talking about the building department, at which point Duke claimed that Terry sent an “inaccurate budget” to its director.

Mr. Amlong then quizzed Deputy Duke on how the building department is funded (page 153):

Amlong: How is the building department funded?

Duke: It’s funded out of general fund with everything else.

Amlong: It’s not funded through building department revenues?

Duke: It’s funded — yeah, through building department revenues, but it’s all part of the budget that the stuff is funded with, yes.

Amlong: So building department revenues are just part of one big pot money called the general fund, correct?

Duke: Building department revenues are building department revenues.

Amlong: Would you look, sir, please at Mr. Henley’s Exhibit 15? Are you familiar with the state law concerning the funding of building departments?

Duke: Not in detail, no, but I am aware of it, yes.

Amlong: Well, turn to the second page and tell me if you had been aware of the highlighted paragraph that reads, the governing bodies of local government may provide a schedule of fees to authorize by sections 125.562.

As we’ve already reported, Exhibit 15 is a “printout of § 553.80, FLA. STAT., which forbids the use of building-department revenues for anything other than building-code enforcement.”

Specifically, the statute states that, “each local government and each legally constituted enforcement district with statutory authority shall regulate building construction,” and the “governing bodies of local governments may provide a schedule of fees … for the enforcement of the provisions of this part. Such fees shall be used solely for carrying out the local government’s responsibilities in enforcing the Florida Building Code.”

Mr. Amlong continued grilling Deputy Duke by asking:

“Are you aware that that statute provides that the governing bodies of local governments may provide a schedule of fees as authorized by sections 125.562 or 1.6222 in this section for the enforcement of the provisions of this part? Such fee shall be used solely for carrying out the local government’s responsibilities and enforcing the Florida building code.

The authority of the state enforcing agencies to set these for enforcement shall be derived from authority existing on July 1st. Nothing contained in this subsection shall operate to limit such agencies from adjusting their fee schedule in conformance with existing authority.

Are you aware of that paragraph?”

The city’s attorney Brooke Ehrlich jumped up to object, claiming, “Mr. Sorey’s knowledge of Florida Statute 553.80 and the expenditures of the Florida building code has absolutely nothing to do with the direct examination. This is again far outside the scope of his direct examination and is not related at all to the issue at hand which is Mr. Henley’s performance with regard to the budget.”

Au contraire, Ms. Ehrlich.

Mr. Amlong went on to explain, “It is related directly to Mr. Henley’s performance with regard to the budget because it is — because Mr. Sorey was attempting and was berating and cursing at Mr. Henley because Mr. Henley was telling him you can’t use the two to $3 million surplus in the building department for anything other than the building department. And that wasn’t what — that was not what Mr. Sorey wanted to hear.”

BOOM!

Ms. Ehrlich tried one more time to keep Duke from answering the question since he was obviously ignorant about state law.

She claimed that Deputy Duke’s “testimony was about the calculation of the budget and the chart; it had nothing to do with the interpretation of this statute.”

To which Mr. Amlong replied, “It certainly does, Madame Chair, because if the building department takes in $3 million fees and spends $1 million in building inspecting, the other $2 million stays there; it can’t be used.”

And, yes, once again …

BOOM!

The testimony continued on page 160:

Amlong: Part of assertion that Mr. Henley was incompetent is that he was not giving you enough money to go into the general fund, correct?

Duke: No.

Amlong: Did you think that Mr. Henley should have credited money from the building department to the general fund?

Duke: We never had the conversation.

Amlong: Did you credit money from the building department to the general fund?

Duke: I — the building department — all of the revenue goes into the revenue that gets dispersed.

Amlong: So that’s yes?

Duke: All the revenues go into the general fund.

Amlong: Including the building department?

Duke: Yes.

Amlong: And Mr. Henley, on July 30th, told you that you could not do that, correct?

Duke: No. My conversation with Mr. Henley was strictly about why was he still budgeting money from outsourcing and for part-time employees that was done two years prior? That’s what it was about; that’s what I wrote him up about, and that’s what I sent him home regarding.

Amlong: Well, if none — if all of that is internal to the building department, if you can’t touch any of that money in the building department, and if the building department has three million and it’s only spending one million, why does it matter what he’s doing internally with it?

Duke: I don’t think you asked a question.

Amlong: Where was the surplus money from the building department going to go?

Duke: I wasn’t aware there was surplus money from the building department.

Amlong: Tab 16, please, 16A.

Duke: Okay.

Amlong: And you recognize that as a 2017, 2018, and 2019 budget projection for the fees by the building department?

Duke:Yes.

By now, we’re not sure anyone can take much more BOOM!

However, please be patient.  Duke Sorey’s goose is almost cooked.

SPOILER ALERT!

On page 165 of the transcript, Deputy Duke brings up “GASB,” claiming it’s “not budget. That’s accounting, so those numbers come from finance.”

Mr. Amlong then asked Duke if he even knows what GASB63 is.

Duke replied, “I couldn’t tell you, sir. I’m sure Mr. Henley couldn’t tell you either.”

Deputy Duke may not know what GASB63 is, but Terry Henley sure does!

And now, thanks to Terry’s testimony (which we will cover in Part 2), so do we.

We learned that GASB is the acronym for the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.  According to its website,  GASB was “[e]stablished in 1984, the GASB is the independent, private-sector organization based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that establishes accounting and financial reporting standards for U.S. state and local governments that follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)”

(More to come on this subject in the next blog post.)

Duke’s testimony continued with Ms. Ehrlich yet again objecting (page 169) to Mr. Amlong’s line of questioning about GASB, which she claimed was “outside the scope” of Mr. Henley’s performance.

Mr. Amlong, however, countered with, “The line of questioning is going into the fact they’re accusing Mr. Henley of being incompetent for not doing — for not behaving correctly as they wanted him to.”

Ms. Ehrlich, in turn, responded with, “The City has never attempted to say that Mr. Henley was incompetent for not behaving the way that they wanted him to — I mean, the summary and the basis for that is improper. That’s not the City’s position.”

Oh, pray tell, Ms. Ehrlich.  What exactly is the City’s position?

We have yet to hear a rational answer.

Garbage in, garbage out

And finally, Mr. Amlong asked Deputy Duke whether or not it was Terry Henley’s job to inform him or the City Council how much it’s going to cost to subsidize the residential garbage pickup (page 175).  Duke responded with, “We had more pressing issue to work on.”

When the Chairwoman of the Board asked why this question was relevant, Mr. Amlong replied, “Because he’s accusing him of wasting time doing this when we’re talking about a million-dollar item. It’s part of the budget.”

He added, “Letting the City Council know  — letting Mr. Sorey and Mr. Spring know that it’s going to cost at least $678,000 to subsidize residential garbage pickup is part of what the budget director is supposed to do. If you’re sitting there making a budget, and all of the sudden, you’re going to have a $678,000 expense that you didn’t have last year, don’t you want to know about it?”

And, of course, lawyer Ehrlich objected once again that this is “outside the scope” and “has no relevance to Mr. Henley’s performance.”

And, of course, Ms. Ehrlich was overruled because, as Mr. Amlong put it, “Don’t you think in putting together the budget that you needed to know how much it was going to cost?”

Deputy Duke again protested that the Council directed them not to raise the rates for garbage pickup and it wasn’t his job to question them.

“It’s not my job for that. My job is balance the budget. I’m a forest ranger. The council are the forest commission. So I’m doing my job, sir.”

Hmmm.  Where have we heard that before?

Just saying.

We could literally go on and on.  But in the interest of losing our captive audience, we’ll end this blog post with this final tidbit.

When Brooke Ehrlich, Esq. began her re-direct of Deputy Duke (page 186), she asked him about the first-ever distinguished budget award that Terry Henley secured for the City of North Miami, he responded, “It’s painting a pretty picture of the budget, taking all of the information, putting it into a pretty format, just listing everything, you know, that’s in the book. It’s a pretty format. It doesn’t go to the content or anything; it’s just a pretty format.”

Oh, really?

Just a “pretty format” that Deputy Duke Sorey had never been privileged to receive until Terry Henley was hired by the City of North Miami.

Just saying.

In Part 2, we will delve into Day 2 of Terry Henley’s appeal hearing before the North Miami Personnel Board.

Prepare yourselves, because you’re gonna need more than just popcorn for this double feature.

Stay tuned.

Stephanie