This March’s celebration of Women’s History Month provides an opportunity to reflect upon some practical lessons from our female forebears. There are a number of local women whose work and efforts on behalf of the community are worthy of praise, but for today, the focus will be upon the “Mother of Miami”: Julia DeForest Tuttle. Tuttle was perhaps one of the most persistent, dedicated, and visionary women of her time. As far as lessons from history go, did you know that one of her most noteworthy historical achievements also represents an underrated case study in effective grant writing?

So driven was Tuttle to lead the movement to start a new city along the Miami River that after writing numerous letters to Henry Flagler, she personally made the trip to St. Augustine to discuss the matter of extending his railroad further southward. Her vision to attract development to South Florida depended upon ensuring efficient access to the area—and in the 1800s that required a train. Allegedly, her effort in St. Augustine proved fruitless. But as one story goes, after The Great Freeze of 1894-1895, wherein the majority of Florida’s citrus groves were devastated, the clever Tuttle sent Flagler flowering orange blossoms from her own yard beside Biscayne Bay—a demonstration of the area’s “freeze proof” potential. Offering her own “local match,” in effect, by granting Flagler significant tracts of her own land for the construction of the railway, Tuttle deftly capitalized on a collaborating interest to propel her vision forward. Ultimately, Flagler accepted, and the rest is Miami history, folklore or not.

More than a century after Tuttle’s land grant, grant sources and similar opportunities have expanded and diversified. Like Tuttle’s grant, which in her contribution of land both addressed an issue plaguing the citrus industry as well as foresightedly sought a means to her vision, grants today are about making impact investments with benefits exceeding their costs. To be sure, the federal government, states, counties, cities, foundations, nonprofit entities, and even for-profit corporations offer opportunities for grants and are motivated to find worthy projects to meet their funding mandates. But efficient allocation of funding resources requires more than availability of funding. Applicants, for their part, must effectively communicate the merits of their prospective projects.

To this end, grant writers and specialized consultants spend countless hours fine-tuning technical information to transform grant applications to perfection. Their help is usually invaluable. But for those humbly trying to build their own visions into reality (and for whom clippings of foliage may not be sufficient), Tuttle’s example outlines some core concepts critical for effective grant writing.

Thoughtfully Assemble Your Team
To bring her vision of developing a city along the Miami River to reality, not only did Tuttle reach out to Flagler for the construction of a railroad, but she also collaborated with Mary Brickell and her husband William Brickell, who agreed to grant a large tract of their land for the benefit of railroad construction.

Research shows that group decision-making is more effective than working in a silo because it has the advantage of leveraging multiple perspectives and areas of expertise. It also has the benefit of leading to more creative thinking. Those value-adds are well-established preconditions for success in grant writing. As with the coalition that Tuttle built to see her vision through, consider assembling a grant-writing team with a complimentary diversity of backgrounds and strengths to bolster the request being made. A grant application should inspire confidence in the knowledge base of the applicant, but also should be easily understood by those who are not necessarily experts in a particular field.

Know Your Audience
Tuttle ultimately, and creatively, addressed hardship brought on after The Great Freeze to gain Flagler’s attention. She sent clippings of fragrant orange blossoms from her region of interest that had been unscathed after the freeze that befell the rest of the state. Tuttle knew that Flagler needed an attractive place to lay tracks and induce ridership and that both were interested in catalyzing economic development. Indeed, the merits of extending the railroad southward may never have smelled sweeter, or more of citrus.

Funding agencies are invested in educating prospective applicants on their funding criteria because they are motivated to match funding to worthy projects that solve the kinds of problems that their agencies are institutionally mission-driven to resolve. To avoid wasting valuable time in a review of applicants that miss the mark, funding agencies are usually available to discuss their opportunities. In many cases, it is the individual who ultimately will review and score applications that initiates such informational sessions. Too many applicants incorrectly discount such opportunities as a waste of time. But applicants should seek out informational sessions on grant opportunities, or arrange for separate question and answer appointments with grant administrators.

Understanding the background, goals, and values of the funding agency can provide an informative framework within which a grant writer may be able to more strategically craft a grant application.

Know Your Parameters
Tuttle began her endeavor by writing letters to Flagler, but they were to no avail. By all accounts her initial letters went unanswered.

These days, it is not quite as difficult to know where to start in seeking assistance for grant funding. Grant opportunities come with small print. As to federal grants, for instance, these are known as “Notices of Funding Opportunity” or “NOFOs,” which—themselves—may be accompanied by yet additional guidance from departments administering funding. It is vital to carefully follow a grant’s submission guidelines to avoid excluding your project on a technicality and ensure that your subject matter meets the eligibility criteria from the onset.

Communicate Clearly and Succinctly
Clarity and brevity are fundamental to persuasive argument. Tuttle’s initial letter writing campaign to Flagler seemed to have been in vain, but the simplicity and directness of citrus blossoms wrapped in damp cotton apparently hit the mark.

Compelling hooks, themes, road maps, headers, and demonstratives can position grant applications to be more consumable. Word limits are not suggestions, and there should be no reservations about using less than that allotted. Grant readers are tasked with thousands of pages to evaluate during grant seasons and need applicants to get to the point quickly.

At its very minimal essence, a grant application has three core elements: the identification of a problem or inefficiency or deficiency; a novel proposal to address that problem or inefficiency or deficiency; and a plan of action for executing that proposal that is effective and for which its benefits outweigh its costs. Not losing sight of that framework through all of the sophisticated and idiosyncratic analyses that often accompany an application—even when the formal criteria does not explicitly list these elements—is key to clear communication. And substance is as important as form. Organization, a professional appearance, proofreading, timeliness of submission, and following format guidelines all help to underscore the competence of the submission as well.

Zealously Advocate
Tuttle wrote. She traveled the length of the state. She offered her own landholdings, and banded together with her neighbors, the Brickells. To say that she was persistent, dedicated, and tenacious would be an understatement.

A grant reader can discern the zeal with which an applicant believes in a project. Supported heartfelt responses will always score higher than boilerplate or formulaic submissions.

Conclusory statements and baseless speculation carry little weight for grant applications. For any proposition to be persuasive, applicants should take care to provide support in the form of data or reliable authorities. As with any compelling story, showing is more effective than telling.

For instance, in demonstrating a plan of action for executing a proposal, highlight specific examples of the applicant’s ability to effectively and efficiently administer the grant funding (i.e. partnerships, resources, and experiences in similar endeavors). Sharing this information helps the grantor gain confidence that the grant will be a sound investment.

We enjoy a vibrant South Florida today in large part because Tuttle was an adept grant writer. As the only woman to found a major American city (and having done so even before women were afforded the right to vote), her progressive vision and relentless advocacy are worth more than just passive celebration during this March’s Women’s History Month: Julia DeForest Tuttle is worth learning from.

Candice Balmori is an attorney at Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman where she represents municipalities on a broad range of issues, including counseling on contracts, compliance with public records, sunshine and ethics laws.

Read the original article published in the Daily Business Review here.

The post Candice Balmori pays tribute to the ‘Mother of Miami’ for Women’s History Month appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Given the frequent interactions between government and business, disputes often arise between regulatory bodies and private parties. The landscape of a dispute with local government, however, can look vastly different from the traditional terrain of purely private litigation. The nuanced aspects of disputes that lie at the intersection of government and business, and the specific procedural laws that apply to local governments, require assistance from mediators with specific local government experience to assist parties seeking to resolve disputes through mediation.

The Unique Government-Business Dispute Landscape

Put simply, there are legal and institutional variations that differentiate disputes with government from traditional disputes between private entities. These differences can often become obstacles to resolving even the most seemingly straightforward disagreements between government and business.

Resource asymmetry can often influence the trajectory of dispute resolution. Private parties may be more cost-sensitive in their approach to a dispute, whereas government may be willing to litigate matters at greater expense to protect the public good. This includes a greater willingness to pursue legal theories or challenges that may set important precedent in other matters, which, for an individual litigant, may be economically irrational to pursue.

Moreover, government lawyers are usually specialists in their area of practice and well-positioned to levy and respond to legal challenges in the public sphere, whereas counsel for private litigants sometimes get lost in the mire of unfamiliar statutes and ordinances. For instance, understanding the applicability of open government laws at the inception of a dispute can greatly impact the time spent seeking information from government entities by way of traditional discovery requests later on. Similarly, familiarity with unique defenses available to governments that often do not arise between private litigants, such as sovereign immunity and statutory damages caps, can be key. By the same token, there are distinct statutory regimes that enable certain causes of action, like those brought pursuant to the Bert Harris Act, which are particular to government alone.

To complicate matters further, when a dispute involves government, the public is often an initially overlooked third-party that must nonetheless be accounted for in resolution. Such considerations of the public interest are not typically features of private litigation. Thus, interested stakeholders are often not present at a mediation, but will certainly express their positions at any public meeting ultimately held to approve a settlement. Relatedly, because media consistently tracks government action, public sensitivities are often a paramount consideration in dispute resolution, and public opinion can create a potential obstacle to resolution for local governments.

Finally, in disputes between private parties and governments, there exist unique sensitivities by private actors who are repeat players in the government-business arena and who wish to preserve their relationships and goodwill beyond resolution of a particular dispute for the sake of future beneficial transactions with government.

A Mediator With Experience in Local Government Law as a Guide to Facilitate Mediation

Mediating local government and business disputes can be an invaluable resource to assist the parties as they navigate through the obstacles that this unique landscape presents. The more the needs and limitations of each party are understood by the intermediary facilitating discussion between the two, the more effectively those discussions for resolution can yield progress.

In particular, a guide who can adeptly shepherd the parties procedurally through the sticky aspects of mediation with a government actor—such as understanding limitations on final settlement authority, Florida’s Sunshine Laws, and concepts of sovereign immunity—greatly improves the likelihood that a mutually agreeable resolution of a dispute can be reached.

Additionally, using mediation as a mechanism for settlement can provide a window for creative solutions that allow the parties to shift perspective from the adversarial zero-sum endeavor seen too often in litigation, to a partnership of negotiation for a mutually beneficial outcome more commonly brokered in government fora. This shift in outlook can lead to an improved relationship between the parties during a tense period of interaction. In this manner, the parties can preserve future transaction potential. In fact, the candid discussions and creative intervention of an honest and knowledgeable broker during mediation may allow the parties to conjure creative solutions and remedies not limited to simple dollar demands. In some instances, these discussions have even been shown to spawn policies that foster outcomes with positive outcomes to the public welfare the government serves. Finally, in most cases, mediation can maintain confidentiality. This can help to lessen the apprehension of public sensitivities to certain disputes and potential political ramifications, simplifying the path to dispute resolution.

Given the distinctive challenges that disputes with government present, a mediator with specific local government experience is an underrated and underutilized, but highly effective, guide on the path to dispute resolution.

Candice Balmori is an attorney at Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman’s Fort Lauderdale office and represents municipalities on a broad range of issues, including counseling on contracts, compliance with public records, sunshine and ethics laws.

Jamie Alan Cole is a partner and the managing director of the firm’s Fort Lauderdale office. He represents local officials and governments in matters that help improve their communities and preserve home rule power. Both attorneys are Supreme Court-certified mediators.

To read the original article in the Daily Business Review, click here.

The post Jamie Cole and Candice Balmori Discuss Mediation and Local Government appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

On July 11, for the first time in decades, the world watched as thousands of Cuban citizens poured into the streets in peaceful demonstration against their government demanding, above all else, freedom. This clarion call has roots that are decades old. Acknowledged even within the verses of Cuba’s National Anthem, it is a well-known composition whose tempo has changed ever so slightly throughout the years, quickening now, in part, with the pace of the global health pandemic. To understand the true implications of the instruments at play, it is helpful to understand their origins.

In the summer of 1961, Fidel Castro gave a speech that set forth his regime’s position on cultural “freedom.” Summoning the island’s leading writers and artists to the deliberately selected site of the National Library of Cuba, before a crowd of intellectuals he declared: “This means that within the Revolution, everything; against the Revolution, nothing.” The message was unmistakable: criticism was not welcome. Nearly six decades of censorship later, in December 2018, the same Cuban regime effectuated Decree 349, mandating that all artists obtain advanced permission from the government before any public or private exhibition of art or music. Among other content-based prohibitions, the law banned art and music using “national symbols” to “contravene current legislation.” As a result, a collection of artists known as the San Isidro Movement formed to protest the regime’s persistently repressive cultural censorship.

Several members of that San Isidro Movement, including a group of Afro-Cuban musical artists from both within the island and in exile, subsequently collaborated to write and produce music that was in direct contravention of Decree 349’s mandate. And they did so while deliberately re-appropriating “national symbols”—an ode to true dissent. Co-opting one of Castro’s most infamous political phrases, a motto that is even emblazoned on Cuba’s national currency, a cleverly employed play on the phrase “patria o muerte” (homeland or death) became “Patria y Vida” (homeland and life).

Cuban music has a long history of political expression. For instance, as early as the 1800s, slaves and members of the free Afro-Cuban community employed African-derived music and dance as a form of protest against oppression. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, songs such as “Tear Gas Grenade,” by Miguel Matamoros, used double entendre to reflect social commentary on the use of excess force. Of course, even Celia Cruz’s internationally renowned “Guantanamera” is closely tied with Cuban patriotism. In the case of “Patria y Vida,” the 2021 song denounces the failed Cuban revolutionary state with a distinctly Cuban son-inspired pulse.  With nearly eight million views on YouTube, Patria y Vida went viral within only a matter of months and found its place in recent Cuban musical history.

And so it was that on July 11, almost exactly 60 years after Fidel Castro’s speech to intellectuals and artists, after six decades of repression, thousands of Cubans on the island converged in demonstrations across more than a dozen major cities chanting refrains like, “we are not afraid!” and “freedom!” and “down with the dictatorship!”

In a truly subversive act, Cubans also chanted the chorus of “Patria y Vida,” while the decibel level of these demonstrations rose.

#SOSCuba

The Cuban people themselves documented their momentous recent protests. Forsaking the state-controlled media and using the limited technology available to them, Cubans filmed and photographed the organic, peaceful demonstrations of hundreds of their compatriots in the streets, sharing them beyond the island’s borders and hash-tagging “#SOSCuba.” Those videos and images documented Cubans of all ages and races walking side-by-side and openly raising voices together, with empty stomachs, past crumbling infrastructure and under-resourced medical facilities. In a country where true freedom of expression is punishable by unforgiving law, those acts were nothing less than show stopping.

Despite the government abruptly censoring social media platforms, blocking internet and telephone access, and broadly shutting off electricity, the Cuban people also captured the regime’s response to their demonstrations: plainclothes government agents and Black Beret operatives alike brutalizing their neighbors, beating teenagers with batons, firing rounds in the direction of peaceful crowds, and storming into households to forcibly remove participants.  Then, just as it had in past decades, the Cuban regime went door-to-door, collecting and detaining demonstration participants and dissident activists. To date, according to the group Cuba Decide, there is a conservative estimate of 805 individuals—and counting—who have been detained or arrested in relation to #SOSCuba.

Exacerbated Political and Economic Repression in Cuba

A course of systematic repression and a serial failure of Cuban central economic planning have contributed for decades to a repudiation of Cuban political leadership. But, in the context of a global health pandemic, the follies of the regime’s ineffective top-down policy-making have been exacerbated.

Fundamentally, the lack of free, fair, and transparent multi-party elections at every level of government has left the Cuban populace entirely without a voice. Cuba’s single-party electoral system ensures that even within the nomination process, elections are controlled by the sole voice of the Communist Party of Cuba from the most basic of municipal levels to national politics. Cuba’s voiceless electorate lacks diversity of platform, policy and approach. Given the lack of opportunity for political redress, the absence of hope for an alternative political direction has, understandably, fomented a pressure cauldron among the disenfranchised Cuban people.

Moreover, Cuba’s centrally planned command-style economy has curtailed the potential for thriving private ownership industries to the benefit of only the political élite. The mismanaged, inequitable, and overly cumbersome bureaucratic model has led to market inefficiencies translating to shortages of goods, higher prices and general frustration over scarcity for the average Cuban citizen. In short, the Cuban regime’s own economic policies have undercut the resources available to its people, and all in a time of acute need during the health pandemic.

Widespread inaccessibility in Cuba also extends to essential medical services. This is especially critical during a global health pandemic. For instance, the Cuban regime’s most lucrative export has been its own human capital: the trafficking of medical professionals abroad. Leasing healthcare professionals to foreign governments has brought the Cuban regime an estimated $11 billion each year. By contrast, unable to negotiate their own labor contracts, Cuban medical workers typically only receive an estimated 20% of the salaries that host countries actually pay for their assistance. For a country that has marketed a global army of medical brigades, the Cuban regime has seemingly forsaken its domestic population during the COVID pandemic by continuing to commodify their medical professionals abroad.

Additionally, the lack of an independent judiciary in Cuba and the absence of separation of powers has led to widespread injustice on the island. The National Assembly of People’s Power (ANPP), Cuba’s legislative body, has broad powers to both adopt laws and elect the directors of the main judicial and oversight institutions. Article 108 of the Cuban Constitution permits the ANPP to issue a general and mandatory interpretation of the Constitution and laws. Article 109 even gives it the power to elect the president and justices of the Supreme Court. The ANPP is also granted the power to elect the attorney general of the Republic, a unit subordinate to the president. All of this is to say: the various branches of the Cuban government exercise no independent autonomy or impartiality.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, citing testimony from a former Cuban judge, has reported that defendants in Cuba do not have access to a lawyer until seven working days have passed; and they may remain without legal representation long after that. Coupled with Cuba’s practices of arbitrary detention and transferring detainees between locations before notifying family, Cubans detained or arrested for “public disorder” (and other alleged crimes) while peacefully protesting have little recourse now to fair representation before the law.

While the July 11 demonstrations were the only mechanism available to the Cuban people to air their grievances and raise their voices, these demonstrations were nonetheless undertaken at great personal risk to the thousands who participated.

‘Patria y Vida’

The “clarion call” for freedom, aptly referenced by both the Cuban National Anthem and President Joe Biden in his recent statement, is a complex composition. Nonetheless, for decades, the Cuban regime has orchestrated its politics, legislation, economy, and judiciary with a single conductor whose concern for centralization of power consistently prevails over the welfare of its citizenry. If it listens closely enough, though, the international community can now hear the chorus of voices in Cuba that seek to drown out the state’s crude instrumentalities. The tempo increased on July 11 and the widespread social justice of reform-inspired lyrics across the island were produced, recorded, and broadcast live with heartfelt determination by the Cuban people. As with its musical predecessors, Cuba’s most recent rumba, son, and guaguancó-inspired reggaeton notes have proven to be a powerful melody. With continued international attention and pressure, there is hope on the horizon that the Cuban people may finally, after more than six decades, become their own composers.

Cue the chorus: “Patria y Vida…  Ya se acabó, Sesenta años tracado el dominó.”

Candice Balmori, an associate with Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman, represents municipalities on a broad range of issues, including counseling on public/private partnerships, public finance, procurement, utilities, land use and zoning, and compliance with public records, sunshine and ethics laws.

To read the original article in the Daily Business Review, click here.

The post ‘Patria y Vida’: A Chorus of Free Expression for Cubans appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Who Does This Statute Impact?

Proclaimed to be the nation’s most aggressive COVID-19 liability shield law to-date, this new statute extends protections to the following entities and institutions that make “good-faith efforts” to follow government health guidelines:

• business entities (including charitable organizations and non-profit organizations);
• educational institutions (including pre-schools, elementary, middle, and secondary schools, career centers, and post-secondary public and non-public institutions);
• governmental entities (including the state or any political subdivision thereof—inclusive of the executive, legislative and judicial branches—as well as counties, municipalities, districts, authorities, boards, and commissions);
• religious institutions; and
• health care providers (including clinical laboratories certified by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service; federally qualified health centers; any site providing health care services that was established for the purpose of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic pursuant to any federal or state order, declaration, or waiver; health care practitioners; health care professionals as defined by statute; home health aides; continuing care facilities; and pharmacies).

What Is The Effect of This Statute?

Seeking to limit exposure and liability for these businesses and institutions from lawsuits resulting from COVID-19, section 768.38 raises the standard of proof for COVID-19-related lawsuits and requires that plaintiffs prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with gross negligence.  It also requires plaintiffs to obtain affidavits from physicians actively licensed in Florida who attest to the physician’s belief, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that any alleged acts or omissions caused damages, injuries, or deaths. A determination by the court of a defendant’s good faith efforts to comply with government-issued health standards or guidelines will immunize the defendant from civil liability.  Where cases arise from COVID-19–related circumstances, section 768.38 provides that claims must be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues or within one year after the effective date of the legislation if the cause of action accrued before the effective date.

What About Health Care Providers?

With respect to health care providers, section 768.381 does not require an affidavit by a physician as a part of a pleading, and in any action against a health care provider for a COVID-19-related claim, the plaintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider was grossly negligent or engaged in intentional misconduct.  In addition to affirmative defenses already recognized by law, section 768.381 provides a framework of affirmative defenses available to health care providers relating to their substantial compliance with government-issued health standards.   Section 768.381 further provides that an action for a COVID-19-related claim against a health care provider must be brought within one year after the later of the date of death due to COVID-19, hospitalization related to COVID-19, or the first diagnosis of COVID-19. For claims arising from a delayed or canceled procedure, a lawsuit must be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues.

How Does This Statute Apply?

This statute purports to apply retroactively and prospectively. However, it does not apply in a civil action against a defendant that actually commenced prior to March 29, 2021. Undoubtedly, challenges may later arise as to whether the Legislature may affect causes of action that accrued before the effective date of the legislation, but which had not been filed.

What Is The Take-Away?

Given the language of Florida Statute section 768.38, the documentation of good faith efforts to substantially comply with authoritative or controlling COVID-19-related governmental health guidelines and standards will provide the best defense for business, educational, religious, health care providers, and governmental entities in the State of Florida when confronted with any COVID-19-related litigation that may arise in the future.

The information contained in this document does not constitute legal advice.

The post Governor DeSantis Signs COVID-19 Civil Liability Bill into Law appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.