This Week In South Florida episode: Sept. 8, 2024

? We just hear gunshots. >> Um, it was about 10 to 15 of them. Panic >> I didn't think it would be here. Where I live. >> Profound pain. This is a parent's worst nightmare. >> Is to hear about a shooting at their child's school, this time near Atlanta. >> Though again hitting home. >> But when? When is it going to be enough? >> South Florida's mass school shooting that changed everything . And the now congressman who made it happen, Jared Moskowitz, with us live on the ballot. And now in your hands, Miami Dade will elect a supervisor of elections for the first time. The two candidates right here to debate live policing the police state law takes out civilian oversight. >> Necessary component that makes our public safety system work. >> A new lawsuit asked the courts to put it back. The big news of the week and the newsmakers all live this week in South Florida. Good morning and welcome. We begin with the Forever Connection. South Florida will have to every school where a mass shooter is able to get in and leave ruins in his wake. In the days since that happened in winter, Georgia this week, a split screen moment that likely no one in South Florida watched the Terror at Apalachee High School unfold without thinking of the terror at Marjory Stoneman Douglas unfolding six and a half years ago, that catastrophe led to unprecedented steps toward gun safety in a very conservative Florida state government, likely because the profound pain and outrage was right there in Tallahassee firsthand. It was a Democrat state rep and Stoneman Douglas alum Jared Moskowitz, who led the way and ended a gut wrenching floor speech on his gun bill. Like this. You don't need to stand with me. >> I don't need you to stand with me. >> I need you to stand with the families. Push the green button. >> Thank you. >> And they did. Jared Moskowitz is now a congressman representing South Florida's District 23, heading back to DC this week with the standing to be the lead on any gun safety debate. Congressmanr time on your family day on Sunday. And thanks for being with us. >> No, thanks for having me. >> All right. So we wanted to start with a little bit of breaking news. The Broward School District BSO has arrested someone for making a social media threat to a very specific Broward School this morning. And I don't know if you know much about that, but in light of the week's events and the conversation we're about to have, I just I wanted to hear you weigh in on that. >> Yeah. Well, look, I don't know the veracity of the threats, but nowadays you cannot go ahead on social media and make threats against a school because we no longer treat that as a joke that gets treated as if in every case, uh, it is serious, uh, because it is based on what's going on. >> Uh, not just around the country, but what literally happened in our county at my hometown, in my hometown, at the school, I graduated from, which is a mile from my house. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. And so I'm glad BSO, uh, rightfully, uh, went and arrested that individual. It's why we have the crimes unit that looks at this within BSO. We've invested both state and federal dollars, uh, into the real crime. Uheal crime unit to do that. And it's why the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School safety bill that we passed in Florida on a bipartisan basis is so important because it gave law enforcement these tools to react quickly. Uh, when we see these threats made online. >> And I want to sort of bring that into the news of the week and exactly what you're talking about, because because since this year alone, 385 mass shootings and since the shooting at Douglas High, 3734 mass shootings, as you go back to Congress with your colleagues this week, do those numbers have any significance science at all? At the Capitol? I mean, they have a significance to me who watched family members and parents bury their loved ones and their kids put them in the ground at a you know, dads that didn't come home, husband's 14 year olds. >> So, yeah, that that has significance to me. The problem is my colleagues on the other aisle don't. They're beholden to a special interest. They're beholden to lobbying money. Uh, on this issue rather than the humanity of the issue. And I'm for, uh, the Second Amendment. Uh, I'm for robust Second Amendment, but that doesn't mean we can't have common sense regulations and rules like we have here in Florida, by the way. >> Exactly. And that's that's kind of what I was getting at, because Florida is still a very conservative state, just like it was six years ago and passed these. I mean, it wasn't monumental, but it was unprecedented, and it was the kinds of steps that really have been making a difference, especially the red flag laws that have been used so many times that go to the person and not the weapon. And why not take Florida as a role model and take those kind of steps on a national level? >> Well, look, it took us a while to get to those steps, right? We had the pulse shooting. We had the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, and then we had parkland. Uh, but, you know, I always give my colleagues across the aisle credit. I do think it was, uh, a historic step in Florida and pretty monumental, if you compare what we've done, uh, at the federal level or even at some states. I mean, we raised the age to 21 here in Florida four years before New York, the state of New York did that, uh, red flag laws, as you mentioned, three day waiting periods, hundreds of millions of dollars for school resource officers and mental health counselors. We have dedicated mental health counselors now dealing with our high schools to identify this threat assessments so that if there are kids that are making threats, they get an assessment. Parents right to know parents have a right to know if there's something going on in their classroom, and then making sure our school perimeters are completely or safer than they were before, before parkland. So this is all about mitigation. And Florida is the model. There are no protests in the street for people who can't go buy guns in the state. We have permitless carry here, uh, in the state of Florida. So if you want to be able to get a gun here, you can get a gun here, no problem. In Florida. That's why you don't see people banging on the door saying you're infringing upon my Second Amendment rights. But yet we have common sense rules like red flag laws, which have been used 19,000 times in six years. Let me say that again, 19,000 times, law enforcement has deemed someone a danger to themselves or a danger to others, right? Suicide, domestic violence. A veteran suffering mental health, or a student in this case threatening to shoot up a school, uh, has taken their weapons away. Uh, they get due process. They get to go in front of a judge and say, no, it was a mistake, right? So that their so their rights aren't infringed upon. But this is how we're keeping communities safer than we were before. Parkland And it is a model, uh, for both Georgia or Texas or any other states that have suffered these problems. Those are conservative states. This state is run completely by one party. And yet they did the right thing. And people are safer for it. Yeah. >> So on Wednesday, you had tweeted, I refuse to do nothing . Does that mean that there is a plan? Are you heading to Washington with something in mind? >> Well, again, right, it's like what I said after parkland, right. The idea to do nothing, nothing. We can't find one thing like one thing. Oh, how about mental health? Or how about school safety? We can't even agree on that. I mean, obviously I think red flag laws would be the most palpable, acceptable thing that we could roll out nationwide because that's not, you know, law abiding citizens. These are people who are about to harm someone. Yeah. Okay There are signs that they're either about to harm themselves or harm their spouse or loved one, or go out and do something in the community. Um, based on evidence that's being assembled. That's why you red flag them. Um, and so I think that's something that we should be talking about. It's not going to stop all crime. It's not going to stop all shootings. This idea that, oh, we can't stop at all. So why should we do nothing? Well, then I guess we should get rid of all our laws, right? I guess we should. You know, the reason we have crimes against murder, okay? Laws against murder is becau we don't want that to happen. It doesn't mean that we're going to prevent all of it. So this idea that we should do nothing, which is literally the what the other side has been pushing on for years now, I just find so defeatist, uh, and unacceptable. Now that doesn't mean we're going to get something done in 118th Congress. You've seen what this Congress has looked like the most unproductive Congress, uh, in over 50 years. We've passed, you know, a 10th of the bills that other Congresses have passed. We're no longer doing the business of the American people, lowering the cost of health care, lowering the cost of living, uh, making communities safer. No, it's all about messaging bills and fakeness and showsnd faux fake impeachments and all of that jazz. So, you know, maybe if the 119th Congress can get their act together, we can actually work together on a bipartisan basis to do stuff for the American people. >> Well, speaking of elections in November, you know, timing is everything. And timing largely is why by March of 2018, those your bills, your gun bills really got through a conservative legislature. So talk about timing presently. Do you think that because of Winder, because of what what may be another in the next couple of weeks, will this be an issue to voters? Look the bills got through, uh, the state legislature in the House and the Senate, and the governor signed it for a lot of reasons that were going on. >> One is we had these several massive efforts three years in a row. Yeah, two two is we had the parents and the family members who had just buried their loved ones come up to Tallahassee and become lobbyists immediately. We had the students come up. But there's one there's one particular item that doesn't get talked about a lot is that there were relationships and friendships across the aisle. Democrats and Republicans and Republicans,ot from this area came down to see the school. What it look like when it was when your school gets turned into a war zone. And we agreed that there were certain things that we weren't going to do, but we tried to find a middle ground, and we agreed on one principle, which is whatever we pass, it would have had to prevent what happened in parkland. And it was because of those relationships. Right And also because we don't have the national media in Tallahassee driving us apart or social media that we were able to actually put our differences aside and, and get some middle ground legislation done. That's why it's so hard to get it done in Washington. You heard even Rick Scott say he supports the state law, but he doesn't want to do it on a federal level. I think. >> And so you just laid out a blueprint for what needs to be done. I hope someone up there is listening. >> Well, look, there are relationships up there, but everyone's got to get out of their corner. I'm not going to get everything I want. And I understood that in Tallahassee when I helped draft that bill. But they also need to move this idea of doing nothing should no longer be acceptable. There is a medium ground of making sure people have their rights under the Second Amendment, and making sure communities are safe from people who are a danger to themselves or a danger to others. In this case, in Georgia , this kid was a danger. He was threatening to shoot up schools , right? He was questioned by local law enforcement and his father thought, oh, I know what I'm going to do. The way to deal with that is let me go get him the gun. And then he bought him literally, the AR 15 style weapon that he then used to commit the shooting that he was threatening that he was going to do okay. And now the father has been arrested. Rightfully so. Yeah, but that's why we should have laws to make sure that parents are held accountable if they give their kid a gun. Who's threatening to shoot up a school? I mean, this is the most egregious of egregious cases that I can really remember ever. Yeah. Um, well, we'll see why we got to find common ground 100. >> I can't imagine anybody would disagree with how you frame that argument. And Congressman, we look forward to what you do in Washington this week. And please do keep in touch with. I've heard from many voters that have no party affiliation, that they believe this isn't an election for them to vote in, and nothing could be further from the truth. >> All 1.5 million registered voters in Miami-Dade are eligible. That was Miami-Dade Election Supervisor Christina White during last month's primary. >> She's the nonpartisan, not nonpartisan professional consistently credited with running smooth, efficient and fair elections. Now, in November , for the first time, Miami-Dade voters will elect a supervisor in a partisan race like Broward does now, the two candidates running are here for the first time together for not really a formal debate, but a chance to make the case for you. Answer some questions, Jay Planas is the Democrat in the race. A former state rep and now an elections attorney, Alina Garcia is the Republican in the race. She is finishing her terms as state representative in Tallahassee. And both are here. Right here at the table today. And I'm so happy that you are. And we have this chance to have sort of a little debate, a little conversation. Um, first question, I'm going to start alphabetically, Lee Garcia, if that's okay. Okay. So I want to get a sense of what you both bring to a supervisor of elections position. Alina what do you bring to this position? Well good morning, Glenna. >> Thank you very much for having us here today. >> And you can talk to us to feel comfortable. >> Okay. Um, well, my name is Alina Garcia, and I'm the state representative for district 115. I'm running for supervisor of elections because I think it is a very important position. >> I have the endorsement and the support of our firefighters and our police, and what I bring to the table is my 30 years of experience serving in the community in different positions as, uh, uh, I served in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, in Congress, and the city of Miami. >> And my I just want to clarify, not as a congresswoman or a state senator, but in. No, no, as, as as as no as a as an aide to the to elected officials . So I learned I learned from the electeds of that time. And now you're finishing the good and the bad, and now you're finishing your own terms as state I am, I am, I will be a state representative until until the, the next election. And God willing, then I'll be a supervisor of elections. Uh, I think Christina White has done a great job, and we plan on keeping her her, uh, you know, it's a nice transition from woman to woman. >> Well, we'll talk about a little bit of that. I want to get Jake. Um, what do you bring to the table? Why are you in this race? >> Well, I'm Jake Planas, and I am running for supervisor of elections. >> I've been an elections attorney for over 15 years. I've done more than 20 recounts, not just in Miami-Dade, but all over the state of Florida. And yes, Christina White's the best. >> And know this because I've worked on elections all over the state of Florida and nobody does it better than Miami-Dade County . >> I've been teaching election law for over eight years, and in fact, it was my election law students who first encouraged me to run for this position. >> I want to now take kind of delve into I'm going to talk a little bit about the politics of it later in the campaign later, because it's a first right in Miami-Dade. But I want to start out with you know, the procedures you've seen you both really have said glowing things about the procedures and the person in place. Do you see anything that you would change right off the bat? >> Yes, I would like to have more transparency. I would like to have more, um, you know, Miami-Dade County, we have so many people that become citizens . And when they go vote for the first time, they are, um, they have no idea what they're doing and they're scared. And it's. So I want to be more transparent and have more education and bring a little bit more of that. >> Let me just clarify what you're saying, because transparency is one thing. Education is another thing. Is there do you find something that is not totally transparent in the process at the moment? >> It's not that it's not transparent. It's just that people don't know how it rks. So education, awareness, education and transparency both together, they go hand in hand. You know, I would like to have the TV cameras, you know, when they're counting the votes so that people see exactly where the ballots go and how they're counted, you know, because that gives that gives the people confidence. And that's I think it's a very important thing that the electorate have a confidence on in the Department of Elections. >> J.C, I, I will say I've been with our cameras when we are there watching and having people kind of say, oh, back up, back up. What do you think? Is there something about the process at the moment that you think needs changing? >> The process is transparent and in fact, as a law professor teaching election law students, I bring them to the Department on the night that they count the votes. So many students didn't even know. Anyone can walk in to the elections office on the night they count the votes. I think communication is the issue, not because of the department, but because it's been part of the county. It's been hamstringing in the way it communicates. So we are going to go out to the people. We are going to show the people how transparent the process actually really is. The truth is, is that we have the safest, most efficient election system we've ever had. In fact, for the past ten years, we've had our technology go up to the point that it's a safe system. Unfortunately for the past six years, faith in the system has gone down. But this is the result of misinformation that's been given out to the public. So we're going to combat a lot of this misinformation. >> Let me let me just detail that. What what misinformation has been going on? >> Well, I mean, you know, it started in 2019 with Donald Trump talking about failures of vote by mail ballots, when actually we have the safest system we've ever had. And then sowing doubts with the electoral process and sowing doubts about the 2020 election. The truth is, is that even Donald Trump's same people said it was the safest election. What's sad is that it's resulted in threats against elections officials, the US attorney general just this week talked about threats against election officials. We can't have this type of misinformation because it puts people's lives in danger. >> And so and you're talking on a national level, yes. >> It hasn't permeated Miami-Dade yet. >> Thank God bring you into that that conceptually on a on a local level, do you feel like people have faith in elections and the difference, the difference between the state of Florida and other states is that , number one, we've had a Republican, uh, legislature and a Republican governor. >> Then we've been making laws to make sure that our elections are are safe and they're effective, and they're and they're fair. Um, there's, uh, there's states where they have universal ballots. And I think that that's, that's been the issue in, in Florida in order to receive a vote by mail, you have to first be a registered voter, and then you have to request the absentee ballot. Then there's checks and balances. So I think that it's a lot safer in Florida. I don't really know the laws of other states, but I know that there are universal ballots and that's where the problem comes in. >> So let me let me just ask you about the conservative state legislature put in election integrity laws. That's what they were called election integrity laws tightened some of some of the laws, all the while saying, we're doing this kind of preemptive because we don't see any problems. There were no problems. On the other hand, what some would call election integrity, I think a lot of people, especially in the Democratic side of the aisle called it, um, something like, uh, preventing people from voting. Well, and I wanted people that are not U.S. citizens are not registered to vote. >> They don't have a right to vote. >> So how would you and this is Cole leading up to the question, how would you make it super simple and easy for those who are valid voters to vote? >> It is super simple and easy. Right now. All you have to do is fill out, you know, fill out the form and or you can call or do it online. It's very easy today. It's people just are not. >> So no changes in the electoral. >> Well that would not be up to the supervisor of elections that would be up to the legislature. I have a great relationship with the legislature and I'm sure that if there's anything that I see while we're there, we can we can make it happen. And do you think, you know, as the laws stand now, I mean, the state sets the hours for early voting, but certainly locally you can work within those parameters and change those hours. >> But how how would you take the laws that the state has handed you and make it unbelievably easy for registered voters to vote? >> Well, right now we have a sense that our our centers arehe just not good. The legislature actually needs to expand the type of places we can use for early voting. We have places that don't have adequate parking . We have places that don't have the most conducive areas for early voting. We need to spend the money to be able to have places like shopping centers and banquet halls that have ample parking. You need a change of law for that. We need a change of law for that. Yes, the legislature needs to expand. So for the general election in November, they allow one audible. They need to be able to allow 2 or 3 audible places that are outside the round. >> By audible, you mean the place that choose. >> Yes. The local can choose a place that is not a library or a government center. As far as illegal voting, I mean, in 1996, we passed a comprehensive immigration bill nationally that prevents us, um, people that aren't citizens from voting. And even the Brennan Center and the Heritage Foundation, a concern of entity, the Heritage Foundation found that between 2003 and 2023, only 24 instances of people who were non-citizens voting. This is not an endemic problem. I think this is a created problemAgain, to sow doub plans and Elections attorney both vying for this position for the first time. A partisan race in this county. JC how do you think that partisanship does it change the dynamics of this job? >> Well, it's horrible. I mean, the truth is, is that I'm probably the only person running for office who never felt before that this should have been an elected office. I think we did well with appointees. It definitely should not be a partisan office. I'm going to try to take politics out of it. In fact, before I filed, I texted and a lot of the Republican attorneys that I worked with and I said, I don't expect you to vote for me. I don't expect you to support me, but know you will always have an open door to the office because everybody needs to have a seat at the table to make sure that this office runs the best way possible. >> I mean, elections just shouldn't be a party thing. Everybody wants free and fair elections. Do you do you think partisanship injects anything into the dynamic? And should it and will it with you? >> It will not. It will not. I will run a fair, uh, supervisor of elections. Uh, I'll be a fair supervisor of elections. And I. But the issue is this whether a race is partisan or it's not partisan, people are Republican. Democrat or no or no party affiliate there. You know, that's how we feel. That's how we, you know, so at the end of the day, um, like, for example, we just had the mayoral race and that position is non party, but but the person that won that position is very Democrat. She's very Democrat. And she only supports Democrats. So it it you know is it non party. Is it never is. >> Well I will run the Department of elections I can I can I just say without the mayor sitting here to defend herself. You know in, in an election a party representative will support their own party. But in the job is what I'm talking about in the job of a nonpartisan. >> I wonder how many Republicans are in in that team. I wonder. >> So my question to you is you will not inject any partisanship at all. Let me how how the campaign itself you have now, you have to run as it. Well, you both ran. As for state rep, you were a former state rep. So you know what campaigns are like. You get donors. You get donors who support your campaign, allow you to run JSI your donor for this job comes to you one day and needs support and a favor. How do you handle that? >> Well, I mean, if it's help voting, obviously you're going to help everyone voting. If it's something dealing with contracts for voting machines, I'm going to say buy, buy, buy, um, let me just contrast something that the rep resentative said. And this is the problem with a partisan election, um, a growing, growing number of the people in nonpartisan voters and to deny them the ability to vote in primaries and to select the candidates, I think is wrong. The mayor, by the way, got with the presidential and the Democrats. The mayor got 30% of the Republicans and got almost 70% of the NPA's. So I think they call that an overly partisan race is wrong. But the truth is, is that all voters should be picking all the best candidates for this. And to deny any type of voter a role in the primary, I think, is wrong. And that's why I think we need to change it. But the truth is, is that that's also a state law. Yes. This is the you know, you talk about the donors. This is the least transactional job there is. This isn't like the sheriff's office that you have cars and uniforms. Um, this is an extremely difficult position to raise money for because, you know, what are you calling? Hey, would you like to save democracy ? Which is the platform that I'm running on? Um, the truth is, is that there are people that are donating very little, and that's important because it shows that they want to protect this office . Um, at the end of the day, I've decided I'm not taking any money from anybody who represent any sort of voting system. That's going to be a blatant conflict of interest, and we're going to do that as blindly as possible. >> Let me give Elena a chance to answer that. I mean that that is a valid question for anybody running for office and especially in this office. I mean, are people telling you that this isn't really worth their time? >> It's super difficult to raise money for this race. The people that that. >> Why do you think that is? Because they don't expect anything. Not a sexy seat. >> You know, people n't realize how important it is. You know, the supervisor of elections, a very important position because, you know, democracy is the cornerstone of, you know, voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. And, you know, I was born in Cuba and in Cuba, we don't have democracy. We don't have voting. You know, look what's happening in Venezuela, where you have where the person that won is not getting, uh, is not being allowed to serve. So you know, democracy and elections, they come hand in hand and they are super important and absolutely not. You know, um, the only thing that as a sta representative, when people would donate to the campaign actually, that's that just gives you, you know, it's just because they want to support you and it gives you a time to maybe sit down and explain what it is that you want. But that doesn't mean that you're going to vote that way. No it doesn't, but we have reform of course not. >> But we've covered plenty of instances where we see that money trail lead to decisions. But in the short time we have together, I want to just kind of throw out there for the primary vote. Last month, turnout in Dade was 19, 19, 19% tt, you know, I was telling people that means two out of every ten people make your decision. >> It was endemic in the state of Florida. Yes. Orange didn't even reach 17. So what is the role do you see as a supervisor of elections to you know, it's a free country. >> People don't have to vote if they don't. But to bring up that engagement. >> I am the communication is going to be a big part of this. I am going out into the colleges. I mean, I've been teaching in law school and in undergrad now for a while. We do need to engage our younger people. We don't see the site visits to the high schools. We are going to be registering. I think there has to be public service announcements. Listen, I expect to come here during the August election to promote this. I think one of the problems we have is also the way we're selling the election. You know, we're going to have like 80% turnout for November. We only had 19 in August. And August. We're electing the mayor of the 80. You expect 80. Yeah. That's typical. Yeah You get 70 to 80% in in the November election. An especially for president lower in the midterms. But in the August election we elect our mayor, our commissioners, our school board members, our zoning board members, our judges. ese are people who have much more impact on the daily lives of individuals than the president of the United States may ever have. So I think we need to promote this. I think this has to be an all hands on deck policy. I think we need to get all our county commissioners in on it and make sure that people are going out to vote. But again, the fact that we have a closed primary system, even though these were nonpartisan races, a lot of NPAs thought they couldn't vote in the primary. So we will have an education aspect to inform the NPAs that they can vote in that election. That's important. >> Okay. Um, Melina, what about you? Is there a role and what would your role be getting up above 90? >> Yeah, absolutely. As I said at the beginning, you know, transparency and education and in all forms, you know, in all forms, education is super important, very important. And the fact that we have so many people that are voting for the first time, um, those people need to have, uh, you know, we need to instruct them a little bit more because they, they don't really understand how it works. They come from countries where maybe they've never been allowed to vote in their lives. So no idea. >> You go out and meet them where they are, they come in. How does that happen? >> You do it through the media. You guys would be instrumental. We're really good at that. Yeah, you're very good at that. We do it through the media and we could also do it, you know, like by going to events and, um, you know, as supervisor of elections, there's going to be a lot more that can be done because the supervisor now is appointed and that supervisor has some hamstrings, right? We now are going to be beholden to the people because they're the ones that elect us. >> Well, on Christina's behalf. And unsolicited, I think she works as if she's beholden to the she's the best. Selina Garcia, thank you so much. I think this has been a really great c. On Miami is among the South Florida cities that had citizen panels to review allegations of police conduct. Voters created the Cipp Civilian Investigative Panel two decades ago from community concerns about police use of force. Fast forward to this year, there were 21 such panels around the state until the new state law that took effect that took away their power. The Miami is planning to defund its CIP despite a groundswell of support for it and a lawsuit against its demise . It was filed by Rodney Jacobs, the executive director of Miami's Civilian Investigative Panel. And I wanted to sort of bring you in and talk about the lawsuit and the new law because, you know, there are two sides to this. Of course. So, first of all, the basis for the lawsuit. >> Yeah. Well, really the basis is, is that we believe that the city of Miami has misconstrued the state law to defund us. We believe in totality that although the law does constrict some of the work we do, it does not. It's not a mandate to totally defund. >> So the HB 601 is the is the basis for the law, essentially taking the oversight of police and making it uniform around the state. That was the stated intent of the law. So it does not say that you can't exist. Correct But it certainly takes away any of the power you have to do anything like you're doing ING. >> Yeah. So it definitely constrains our investigative powers, but that's all it does. And if anyone's been following our work over the lasten years or so, they've seen us do a litany of things to include our community police mediation program review department orders and procedures, which comes to people's minds after, you know, the holds that George Floyd was in. You know, we've outlawed some of those measures and review policy as it pertains to that. And then also, we can still review and audit closed internal affairs cases. So there's still a lot of work that can be done even with this new law. In effect. >> But why when you do that, what would be the outcome that you couldn't now go forward with that you did before? >> So the outcome is pretty much the same. The major difference is that our investigation powers are slightly different. So instead of us taking in a new complaint or starting a case, um, self initiating it, we would have to wait till internal Affairs closes the case. And there's still a lot of great value that can come from that, especially if the case is incomplete. >> So in Fort Lauderdale, which also disbanded its form of the panel, they were volunteers. This panel was volunteers Miami spending 1,000,003. That was just defunded from the budget after this law, do you see a role for something like a volunteer panel? >> So we have a volunteer panel as well. We have a 13 member panel. We just have a professional staff that does the investigative work. Right. So we submit those complaints in closed case files to the volunteer panel. And they make a finding of fact that we share with the police chief or but but I do think there is value obviously, in having community interaction and engagement for sure. >> So the law 601 allows sheriffs and actually it it mandates such a panel within departments, but it allows sheriffs to create that. Miami's police chief, Manuel Morales, has his own board that's very similar. And we asked him this week what e difference his board would be from your board. And I want to be able to let you and our viewers hear what he said. Okay, let's do it. >> The plan, as it stands now from the administration's point of view and mine is take my chief's advisory panel and kind of morph them and add some responsible bodies to it. Right. So they're kind of quasi using as, as an advisory board for myself. They would assume most of the roles that the civilian Investigative Panel does. Now, my US, the investigation of police officers. Right. Uh, the new law clearly states that only the police officers can investigate, um, allegations of wrongdoing by officers. Right. But there's nothing to preclude us from reviewing those cases. So sitting down and getting a case that's controversial, that Internal Affairs finishes investigating and presenting it to the board and telling me, hey, how do you feel the investigation went? How do you feel the discipline procedure goes? >> So are you good with that? >> Well, listen, let me first and foremost say that I think Chief Morales is doing the best that he can considering this new law. I have nothing but respect for Chief Morales and the work we've done over the last few years. You know, he's essentially taking this advisory group that he's already had and essentially giving them more responsibility. And my thing to that is, listen, we don't need to recreate the wheel. We already have an organization that's doing that work in, in large part, that the community supports. You know, we received a bunch of letters of support and statements from the ACLU to NAACP catalyst, Miami, you name it. There's been a lot of letters of support and people showing up in our defense. And I imagine that people that are a part of this new organization will likely come from a lot of these community organizations. So, in my opinion, a lot of the things that he just said, I agree with. >> So let's just he's got this board, right. What would you do to that? He wouldn't do well. >> Well, what we would do is obviously the work that I just mentioned that we've currently been doing now, his group right now, they haven't been doing the same work that we've been doing for the last 20 years. He just said, listen, the group that we have has been here in an advisory capacity and we'll try to do some of the things that CIP is currently doing. Well, my argument is like, well, we're already doing the work and we know how to do it well, right? But state legislators said we'd like it to do do it this way. Well, that's that's the thing the state legislature isn't necessarily doing that. They're saying essentially that they can't have the investigative component. >> Do you think this is a matter of taking a sort of this very controversial issue, especially where race relations are concerned, especially in South Florida and saying, look, this is a really important thing to have this relationship with the community. And we've been doing it. I mean, essentially that's what you're saying. Yeah. >> I mean, listen, I think by and large, people understand that we need someone to help navigate these tough police encounters and ensure that the community has a say in what goes on. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. It's just the how mechanism and what I can say is, least in South Florida, in the city of Miami, for the better part of 20 years here, we've been able to do that in a way that has been productive and collaborative. >> All right. One last question about the how of all this in Miami, voters created this. Correct. How how can the city take it away? >> Well, that's part of part of our argument for litigation. It's that listen, this is a charter violation. This is essentially in the constitution of the city of Miami. You cannot defund this or make it go away just by a few vote of the commissioner. So I think there's a lot of legal questions here. We still have to sift forward and out, and hopefully within the next week or so, uh, Judge Walsh and her team are able to do so. >> Where where is the lawsuit? Is there a response to it? Has there been a hearing set? >> No hearing set as of yet. We the I believe the legal team has has served the city of Miami. They are aware of the complaint in the injunction. Obviously with an injunction there's really two two major things and that's urgency and irreparable harm that's looking at. And so hopefully we get on the calendar here within the next week. >> And before you filed this lawsuit, had you talked to anybody from the other 20 panels around the state? >> Yeah. So not only just that, but the city of Miami as well. Listen, we weren't surprised by this law. We had been working and lobbying against it since the better part of last year. You've been here talking about it? Yeah, I've been here talking about it. So, you know, we had ways around this that I thought would be win wins for everyone. I wanted to work with the City of Miami and the commissioners. I was very diplomatic in this approach, I feel, and very level headed and understood kind of the politics that were involved. And to no avail, however. So, you know, right now we're just, you know, doing what we can. And the next logical step was obviously litigation. >> And so stay tuned. >> . The agency and departments that run state operations are, by law, not partisan nor political, and may not participate in campaign activity. But one appears to be with a website not only opposing Abortion Rights Amendment on your November ballot, but calling supporters fear Mongerers now legal action and more is underway against the agency f Health Care Administration. >> Like amendment for an abortion amendment, campaigns against and for may be partisan and political official state business may not, which is why better health care for all Floridians is this Florida department head under scrutiny and under fire? >> The agency for Health Care Administration posting what appears to be part of a campaign against the upcoming vote on amendment four that will allow voters to choose whether to take government out of abortion, health care decisions and eliminate all pro-li protections. The governor has been working to defeat that amendment. A massive grassroots effort to put the questions to voters in the wake of Florida's tight and timelines for pregnancy termination, is now only legal before six weeks. >> You don't use state resources, you don't use a state agency website that is supposed to be apolitical, completely agnostic as as it relates to the politics and the philosophy and policy. >> While state Democrats crafted legal action against ACA today, the incoming Senate Minority leader tried diplomacy first and said, listen, uh, this is my good faith, honest belief that this is in violation of the law. >> Uh, and what's of greater importance is that, you know, the content is removed before it continues to do any harm. That apparently failed the official department response, a prepared statement that says the web page is to provide information and transparency to Floridians and that many in the media have not covered it correctly. >> Besides legal action, Florida Democrats are asking for all communication options, emails, etc. to see who is involved with directing that ACA. Posting the governor's administrators have been challenging the amendment from the start. First, it's very place on the ballot and that didn't work. And then they added their own language to the ballot question. And now as of today, state election police are looking for evidence of problems with the petition signatures that first got it on the ballot. They have yet to find that. And that is our program for today. Links to all the interviews to see and share, plus our This Week in South Florida podcast is all online at local10 dot com. Or you can just scan that code right there and it takes you there. We'd love to hear from you about anything using today's program. Anything in the news, your thoughts, our email is our initials twice F at