COMMISSTON 0N ETHICS

DEC 1 5 2&1?

BEFORE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA RECEIVED
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
is ram? ?33;
In re: Sam J. Saad, 111, it?? a 
we 2- 
Respondent. Complaint No. 17-028
1

 

RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned Advocate, after reviewing the Complaint, and Report of Investigation,

?led in this matter, submits this Recommendation in accordance with Rule F.A.C.


Respondent, Sam J. Saad, serves as a City Councilmember for the City of Naples.

Complainant is Linda Pennirnan of Naples, Florida.
JURISDICTION

The Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics determined that the Complaint was
legally suf?cient and ordered a preliminary investigation for a probable cause determination as to
whether Respondent violated Sections and 
Florida Statutes. The Commission on Ethics has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section
112.322, Florida Statutes.

The Report of Investigation was released on December 4, 2017.

ALLEGATION ONE
Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by voting
on a measure which would inure to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom he was
retained and/or a business associate.
APPLICABLE LAW
Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

No county, municipal, or other local public of?cer shall vote in an
of?cial capacity upon any measure which would inure to his or her
special private gain or loss; which he or she knows would inure to
the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom he or she
is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate
principal by which he or she is retained, other than an agency as
de?ned in 5. or which he or she knows would inure to
the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of
the public of?cer. Such public of?cer shall, prior to the vote being
taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of the of?cer's
interest in the matter ?om which he or she is abstaining ?'om voting
and, within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of his
or her interest as a public record in a memorandum ?led with the
person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who
shall incorporate the memorandum in the minutes.

Section Florida Statutes, de?nes special private gain or loss as follows:

?Special private gain or loss? means an economic bene?t or harm
that would inure to the officer, his or her relative, business associate,
or principal, unless the measure affects a class that includes the
of?cer, his or her relative, business associate, or principal, in which
case, at least the following factors must be considered when
determining whether a special private gain or loss exists:

1. The size of the class affected by the vote.
2. The nature of the interests involved.

3. The degree to which the interests of all members of the
class are affected by the vote.

4. The degree to which the of?cer, his or her relative,
business associate, or principal receives a greater bene?t or
harm when compared to other members of the class.

The degree to which there is uncertainty at the time of the vote as to
whether there would be any economic bene?t or harm to the public
officer, his or her relative, business associate, or principal and, if so,
the nature or degree of the economic bene?t or harm must also be
considered.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes, the following
elements must be proved:

1. Respondent must have been a county, municipal or other
local public of?cer serving on a collegial body.

Respondent must have:

1) voted in his or her of?cial capacity on a
measure which would have inured to the
Respondent's own special private gain or
loss,

or

2) voted in his or her of?cial capacity on a
measure which the Respondent knew w0uld
have inured to the special private gain or loss
of a principal by whom the Respondent was
retained or to the parent organization or
subsidiary of a corporate principal by which
the Respondent was retained,

or

3) voted in his or her of?cial capacity on a
measure which the Respondent knew would
have inured to the special private gain or loss
of a relative or business associate of the
Respondent.

OR

(B). When abstaining from a vote because of a con?ict, the
Respondent, prior to the vote being taken, must have failed to
publicly state to the assembly the nature of his or her interest in the
measure described in paragraph above.

OR

 (C). After abstaining from a vote because of a con?ict, the
Respondent failed to disclose the nature of his or her interest in the
measure described in paragraph above, as a public record in a
memorandum ?led within 15 days after the vote occurred with the
person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting at which
the vote occurred.

ANALYSIS

In 2016, there was property located at 499 Goodlette-Frank Road in Naples, Florida owned
by 499 Goodlette Road, LLC, which was an entity that was speci?cally established to hold the
deed for the property. (R01 5) Axonic Capital, LLC, an investment capital company, owned and
controlled 499 Goodlette Road, LLC. (ROI 6) Axonic Capital is owned and operated by Jonathon
Shechtman. (R016)

Matthew Pikus is owner and operator of Pikus Pr0perty Management, a commercial and
residential property management company which formally managed 499 Goodlette-F rank Road in
addition to other rentals owned by Axonic Capital. (ROI 6, 10) In addition, Pikus operates Pikus
Realty Company, a real estate brokerage ?rm. (R01 7)

In March 2016, 7-Eleven, Inc. entered into negotiations with Axonic Capital for the
purchase of the property located at 499 Goodlette-Frank Road. (ROI 6, 7) Pikus was involved in
the negotiations because he represented Axonic Capital, as the seller, in the matter. (ROI 7)

Respondent and Pikus have business relationships. (R01 10, 14, 22) Pikus?s preperty
management company engaged Respondent?s law ?rm, Sam .1. Sadd PA, to assist in the
evictions of delinquent tenants. (R01 10, 22) In the summer of 2013, Respondent?s ?rm no longer
handled evictions for Axonic Capital~owned properties due to a ?falling out? with 

(R01 10) Respondent?s ?rm and another law ?rm handled evictions for non-Axonic Capital

properties. (R01 12)

In 2013, Pikus paid Respondent?s law ?rm $12,740 over a six-month period. (R01 11) In
2014, the payment was $1,108. (R01 11) In 2015, the payment was $748 for 19 evictions. (ROI
In 2016, the payment was $5,685. (R01 11) Pikus explained that the increase in 2016 was
due to Respondent?s involvement in two contested evictions which resulted in an increase in legal
fees. (R01 12)

Respondent and Pikus are both involved in PISA Acquisitions, LLC, which is a real estate
investment company established in 2011. (R01 14, 22) Pikus advised that Respondent does not
have an ownership interest; however, Respondent receives 15% of the company?s pro?ts in
exchange for having his ?rm provide legal services to the PISA. (R01 14) ReSpondent is identi?ed
as the Registered Agent and a Managing Member of PISA in the company?s 2016 ?ling with the
Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. (R01 15, Exhibit B)

On May 18, 2016, the Naples City Council, including Respondent, voted to approve a
resolution permitting the construction of a 7-Eleven convenience store with a gas station at the 499
Goodlette?F rank Road property. (ROI 9) Prior to voting on May Respondent contacted City
Attorney Robert Pritt regarding whether his business relationship with Pikus could cause a voting
con?ict. (ROI 23, 28, Exhibit C) After being advised by Pritt that a con?ict could be present if
Pikus stood to gain or lose based on the vote, Respondent contacted Pikus. (R0124) While there
is some dispute as to the exact question Respondent asked Pikus, essentially Pikus was asked if he
was going to receive a ?gain? based on the May 18th vote. (R01 16, 17, 24, 25) Pikus advised
ReSpondent that he did not have an ownership interest in the property and was not going to receive
a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the property. (R01 16)

In reality, Pikus inured a gain as he received a sales commission of $24,750 for brokering

the real estate transaction. (R01 17) In addition, Pikus inured a loss as his property management

company lost the management fees of $10,000 it had been receiving for managing the property.
(R0120)

Respondent and Pikus are business associates as it relates to PISA. Also, Pikus is a
principal of Respondent?s due to relationship regarding the tenant evictions. Approval of the site
plan was necessary for the sale of 499 Goodlette?Frank Road property. (ROI 8) A violation
requires that Respondent voted on a measure which he knew would have inured to the special
private gain or loss Pikus. There is insuf?cient evidence to show that Respondent knew the May
18th vote would inure to Pikus?s special private gain or loss as his inquiry to Pikus resulted in a
negative response.

in 2012, Respondent performed legal work for Axonic Capital regarding a purchase
agreement for property. (ROI 32) Shechtman disapproved of the purchase agreement and directed
Respondent to take no further action. (R01 32) Respondent advised that he has had no business
relationship with Shechtman or Axonic Capital since December 12, 2012. (R01 32)

Unbeknownst to Respondent, his ?rm was named as a successor trustee of an entity
associated with Shechtman or Axonic Capital without his consent. (R01 33, 36) Respondent
advised that he only became aware that his ?rm was named as a successor trustee when he received
the instant complaint as he never received a copy of the trust document. (R01 33) On October 17,
2017, an amendment was signed by Shechtman in which Respondent nor his ?rm are listed. (R01
34)

Regarding Respondent?s association with Axonic Capital, there is insuf?cient evidence to
show Respondent had a relationship with Axonic Capital that would result in con?ict under this

statute.

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the

Commission ?nd no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 

Florida Statutes.

ALLEGATION TWO

Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by soliciting

and/or accepting legal work from a client based upon an understanding that it would in?uence his

vote.

APPLICABLE LAW

Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS. No public
of?cer, employee of an agency, local governinent attorney, or
candidate for nomination or election shall solicit or accept anything
of value to the recipient, including a gift, loan, reward, promise of
future employment, favor, or service, based upon any understanding
that the vote, of?cial action, or judgment of the public of?cer,
employee, local government attorney, or candidate would be
in?uenced thereby.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes,

elements must be proved:

1. Respondent must have been either a public of?cer, a public.

employee, or a candidate for nomination or election.

2. Respondent must have solicited or accepted something of
value to him or her, including a gift, loan, reward, promise of future
employment, favor, or service.

3. Such solicitation or acceptance must have been based upon
an understanding that the Respondent's vote, of?cial action or
judgment would be in?uenced thereby.

the following

ANALYSIS

The underlying facts and circumstances relating to this allegation are contained above in
Allegation One. There is insuf?cient evidence to Show a violation of this statute. Respondent and
Films were engaged in tenant eviction legal work prior to Respondent?s vote on May 18th. The
explanation provided by ReSpondent is reasonable regarding the ?uctuation in the payments to
Respondent?s ?rm.

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes.

ALLEGATION THREE
Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by accepting
legal work from a client knowing that it was given to in?uence his vote.
APPLICABLE LAW
Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
UNAUTHORIZED COMPENSATION. - No public of?cer,
employee of an agency, or local government attorney or his or her
spouse or minor child shall, at anytime, accept any compensation,
payment, or thing of value when such public of?cer, employee, or
local government attorney knows, or, with the exercise of
reasonable care, should know, that it was given to in?uence a vote
or other action in which the of?cer, employee, or local government

attorney was expected to participate in his or her of?cial capacity.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes, the following

elements must be proved:
1. Respondent must have been a public of?cer or employee.
2. Respondent or Respondent's spouse or minor child must

have accepted some compensation, payment or thing of value.

3. When such compensation, payment or thing of value was
accepted:

a) Respondent knew that it was given to in?uence a vote or
other action in which Respondent was expected to participate in an
of?cial capacity;

or

b) Respondent, with the exercise of reasonable care, should
have known that it was given to in?uence a vote or other action in
which Respondent was expected to participate in an of?cial
capacity.

ANALYSIS

The underlying facts and circumstances relating to this allegation are contained above in
Allegations One and Two. See Analysis in Allegation Two.

Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the
Commission ?nd no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes.

ALLEGATION FOUR

Respondent is alleged to have violated Section Florida Statutes, by using his

position to bene?t his principal and/or his business associate.
APPLICABLE LAW

Section Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION. No public of?cer, employee of
an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or
attempt to use his or her of?cial position or any pmperty or resource
which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her of?cial
duties, to secure a special privilege, bene?t, or exemption for
himself, herself, or others. This section shall not be construed to
con?ict with s. 104.31.
The term "corruptly" is de?ned by Section Florida Statutes, as follows:

"Corruptly" means done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose

of obtaining, or compensating or receiving compensation for, any
bene?t resulting from some act or omission of a public servant

9

which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his or her
public duties.

In order to establish a violation of Section Florida Statutes, the following

elements must be proved:

1. Respondent must have been a public of?cer or employee.
2. Respondent must have:
a) used or attempted to use his or her of?cial position
or any property or resources within his or her trust,
or

b) performed his or her of?cial duties.

3. Respondent's actions must have been taken to secure a
special privilege, bene?t or exemption for him- or herself or others.

4. Respondent must have acted corruptly, that is, with wrongful
intent and for the purpose of bene?ting him- or herself or another
person from some act or omission which was inconsistent with the
proper performance of public duties.
ANALYSIS
The underlying facts and circumstances relating to this allegation are contained above in
Allegations One and Two. In addition, Respondent advised that he supported 7-Eleven?s
redevelopment of the property because he believed it would raise property values and thereby
bene?t the residents in the area. (R01 30) He denied that he supported the measure for any
personal bene?t. (R01 30)
There is insuf?cient evidence to show that Respondent used his position to bene?t his
principal and/or his business associate.
Therefore, based on the evidence before the Commission, I recommend that the

Commission ?nd no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 

Florida Statutes.

i0

RECOMMENDATION

It is my recommendation that:

1. There is no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section
Florida Statutes, by voting on a measure which would inure to the special private
gain or loss of a principal by whom he was retained and/or a business associate.

2. There is no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 
Florida Statutes, by soliciting and/or accepting legal work from a client based upon an
understanding that it would in?uence his vote.

3. There is no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 1 12.31301),
Florida Statutes, by accepting legal work from a client knowing that it was given to in?uence his

vote.

4. There is no probable cause to believe that Respondent violated Section 1 
Florida Statutes, by using his position to bene?t his principal andfor his business associate.

Respectfully submitted this I {1 day of December, 2017

97/: halt/lav,

 

door A an) LEY 
Advocate for the Florida Commi ion
on Ethics

Florida Bar No. 0636045
Of?ce of the Attorney General
The Capitol, 
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
(850) 414?3300, Ext. 3704

i1