Speaking Truth to Power...Unless That Power is Me.

This is my second impromptu post this week. I was hoping to publish election-oriented commentary from now until April, but, alas, the proverbial “interesting times” in which we live have proven a bit too interesting. Der Mensch Tracht, Un Gott Lacht—Man plans and God laughs.

In any event, Aesop’s Gables isn’t exactly my day job. Your humble observer of political chicanery has other obligations to attend to, so for my sake as much as yours, I promise to keep this relatively short. 3,000 words hastily written on a Friday? Pfft. Like celebrated 21st century philosopher Kimberly “Sweet Brown” Wilkins once said of bronchitis: Ain’t nobody got time for that!

So let's get to it. During public comment at the January 14th commission meeting, longtime and uber-engaged resident Gonzalo Sanabria arose to speak on his favorite topic: the travesty that is the now lame-duck city manager, Aimless Amos Rojas. His comments were, per usual, perfectly polite and nothing you haven't heard a hundred times by now. Nevertheless, it proved an eventful moment, not because of anything Gonzalo said, but because of Ariel's response:

Hold on, I need a moment to recover. I was emotionally swept away by the tidal wave of civility that Ariel unleashed just then. The way he paired we all need to come together with I'm going to sue you into oblivion? Utterly inspiring! How he turned an unnecessary rebuke of Gonzalo into an unprovoked attack on the mayor? Absolutely brilliant! The sheer boldness he demonstrated when he admonished others for politicizing (“weaponizing” is better) the Commission on Ethics when he's the one who's in hot water for—get this—politicizing the Commission on Ethics? Simply stunning!

Conversely, the way the supposedly ruthlessly combative, hyper-toxic, and relentlessly churlish Lago sowed discord by…biting his tongue and moving on? Now that’s downright disgraceful!

But all of that’s neither here nor there. What’s remarkable, indeed the reason I’m throwing this post together on a Friday, is that Ariel, apparently, wasn’t bluffing when he threatened Gonzalo with legal action. Get a load of this:

But I should back up for a second, as sometimes I forget that not everyone follows the Masterpiece Theatre that is Coral Gables politics as closely as I. For those of you who didn’t know, back in December Gonzalo filed a complaint against the members of KFC with the County’s Commission on Ethics (COE), in which he alleged that the troika knowingly violated the city’s HR policy, and therefore committed an ethics violation, when they ambush-hired, excuse me, appointed Aimless Amos city manager last year. The COE eventually dismissed Gonzalo’s complaint for being legally insufficient.

Hence Ariel’s cranky little rant above. That he deemed it appropriate to threaten a resident at a commission meeting and for the whole city to see isn’t surprising. This is the same Ariel, after all, who loudly castigated a former supporter of his in front of dozens of people just outside of Burger Bob’s.

What’s surprising is that he actually followed through with his threat. This crazy SOB is personally suing (or doing what is the functional equivalent of suing) a resident for having the audacity to file an ethics complaint against him—something he himself has done to his enemies (or to anyone who has what he wants) about a billion times over the years.

Promises Threats Made, Promises Threats Kept

Look, I never liked Gonzalo's ethics complaint, as I don't believe in taking swings that won’t land. As we learned from their inexplicably accommodating posture toward Dr. Castro's permit-expediting operation, the COE isn't exactly the most aggressive watchdog on the planet. If they were concerned about appearing “punitive” by merely enforcing the black letter of the law and adhering to well-established precedent in the good doctor's case, they surely weren't going to embrace Gonzalo's rather flawed reasoning here.

But flawed isn’t frivolous. As explained more clearly in my little offering to Gonzalo in the postscript below, the specific provision in the city's HR Manual upon which Ariel's argument rests doesn’t carry the dispositive oomph he thinks it does. More precisely, Ariel contends that the following language “explicitly” excludes the City Manager from the HR Manual's scope:

While I concede that this provision excludes the city manager position, I dispute that it does so explicitly. The distinction between an “employee” and an “appointed official” is sufficiently ambiguous to lead a reasonable person to construe the city manager as falling within the former category—a reading reinforced by the widespread use of employment terminology (“hire” and “fire”) in reference to city managers. Even Herald reporters, who if nothing else are sticklers for careful diction, consistently use the word “hire” when referring to the appointment of a city manager:

As such, Gonzalo's interpretation of the city's HR policy is hardly unreasonable. Moreover, given the COE's broad statutory authority and the expansive scope of ethics laws, one could readily understand Gonzalo's suspicion that KFC's impossibly smooth coalescence around not just one, but two city manager candidates after an unsupervised trip to Tallahassee may—just may—have crossed ethical boundaries.

Nevertheless, that's not the main takeaway here. I doubt Ariel's frivolous petition for attorney's fees will succeed, and I doubt Gonzalo (who isn't exactly a pauper) much cares whether it does.

The real takeaway is the irony. Here we have a man, Ariel, who built his entire political persona around "speaking truth to power," who positioned himself as the fearless voice of ordinary citizens against an entrenched establishment, now seeking legal remedy against a resident for...speaking truth to power.

This is the same Ariel who:

• Founded Gables Insider specifically to "hold power accountable."

• Campaigned on the promise that residents should have more say in their government.

• Regularly encouraged citizens to question authority and challenge the status quo.

• Made "Residents First" his defining slogan.

Yet when a resident adheres to these very principles, when someone follows the playbook Ariel himself authored, his response is not engagement or dialogue, but legal intimidation.

To make matters worse, Ariel had such an easy win here, a layup that even he could have made. Instead of effectively suing Gonzalo, Ariel could have demonstrated genuine commitment to his civility crusade (not to mention all that “Residents First” rhetoric he's always spewing) by simply embracing his role as a public servant and showing a hint of grace:

“Mr. Sanabria, while we may disagree on the interpretation of these rules, I respect your dedication to our city. Your advocacy, even when challenging my positions, makes our democracy stronger. I hope to earn your trust and respect moving forward.”

That would have been checkmate. Gonzalo's COE complaint fails, yet Ariel emerges as the bigger man. The statesman. The commissioner who walks the walk.

But we all know that’s not who Ariel is.

---

P.S. Gonzalo, feel free to forward the following to your attorney:

Regarding the petition for attorney's fees filed against Mr. Sanabria by Commissioner Fernandez: This petition should be denied as Mr. Sanabria's complaint was neither frivolous nor filed in bad faith under Section 57.105 of Florida Statutes.

Section 2.5 of the HR Manual excludes "appointed officials" and "members of boards and committees appointed by the City Commission." The City Manager's classification within this language presents a genuine ambiguity that any reasonable citizen could question. While Commissioner Fernandez argues this explicitly excludes the City Manager (despite the term “City Manager” not appearing in the cited text), this interpretation ignores the contextual placement of "appointed officials" alongside references to boards and committees—positions typically understood by the public as unpaid, advisory roles.

The City Manager, as a paid professional executive who reports to the Commission, is commonly described as being "hired" rather than "appointed." This distinction reflects the fundamental difference between professional administrative positions and honorary appointments. Mr. Sanabria's interpretation of this distinction is not only reasonable but aligns with common public understanding.

Perhaps most troubling is the chilling effect of an elected official seeking substantial attorney's fees from a constituent who raised a good-faith question about municipal governance. This action, if successful, would discourage legitimate public oversight and potentially deter citizens from engaging with their government.

The standard for frivolous claims requires that the party "knew or should have known" the claim lacked merit. Given the reasonable ambiguity in the HR Manual's language, and the Commission on Ethics' widely recognized mandate to investigate any legitimate concerns about public integrity and governance—a broad authority that ethics experts consistently emphasize as essential to maintaining public trust, Mr. Sanabria's complaint clearly fails to meet this threshold. Indeed, the petition for attorney's fees itself appears punitive and inconsistent with the public interest.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that this Commission deny the petition for attorney's fees and protect the public's right to raise legitimate questions about their government without fear of financial reprisal.