A second "friend of the court" brief by Monroe County Attorney Jim Hendrick reveals the link between Hendrick and "Big Sugar" may be sweeter than originally suggested.
And the real "friend" may have been his former next door neighbor and old law school buddy from the University of Miami, Joseph P. Klock Jr., who lists Big Sugar among his prominent clients.
In early June, County Commissioners expressed shock when they first discovered they had "inadvertently" given their attorney the green light to file an "amicus curiae" brief on the side of suspected Everglades polluters, the agri-business primarily known as Big Sugar.
The actual case pits Save Our Everglades activist Mary Barley, former top official with the South Florida Water Management District Nat Reed and former Key West mayor Sheila Mullins against Reed's former friends at the water district.
In that case, on Aug. 28, attorneys for the environmentalists will argue before the Florida Supreme Court, in a class-action lawsuit, that the court should enforce the Polluter Pays amendment, which the voters passed overwhelmingly in 1996.
The amendment was supposed to force most of the state's major sugar producers to pay all the costs in cleaning up their pollution in the Everglades.
Instead, the public has picked up most of the tab for the past five years, while the water district continues to impose a tax that collects over twice as much money from taxpayers than Big Sugar has been willing to pay.
Hendrick wanted the county to support the district in fighting the environmental group and keeping the tax in place, which costs Monroe County taxpayers $1 million a year, arguing that to enforce the amendment would put the county's sewage treatment money in jeopardy.
He also was emphatic that the brief was solely for the benefit of the water district and not "on the side of Big Sugar," which usually refers to U.S. Sugar Corp., Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Flo-Sun Inc. and others.
However, a recently disclosed second friend of the court brief, dated March 29, 2001, lists "James T. Hendrick, county attorney, Key West, Fl, for Monroe County, Amicus Curiae"— this time clearly on the side of Big Sugar.
Mayor George Neugent reacted with frustration Tuesday when the issue of this second "amicus" brief was raised. He said he didn't recall whether this commission had been asked by Hendrick to file this brief.
The mayor had led the charge in early June to revisit its earlier unanimous support for the brief on the side of the district, claiming along with several other commissioners, that they had been "misled" by the county attorney.
This time, Nugent had apparently heard enough. "I told Mary Barley to go to the newspapers. My plate is full right now," he said.
Barley admitted she was surprised by this latest disclosure. "Who is he working for?" Barley asked Tuesday, speaking from her Upper Keys home. "Is he working for the county or working for Big Sugar?"
This latest court case involved an action last February in which the state supreme court, with Hendrick's blessing, overturned a lower court ruling, and favored the sugar company Flo-Sun Inc. and others, against former Florida Gov. Claude R. Kirk.
The former governor and area residents brought a public nuisance complaint in 1995, against companies and a growers cooperative engaged in sugar-cane cultivation, harvesting and processing.
Barley said she couldn't believe that the county was opposing the ex-governor, "known for his environmental support, and a group of mostly African-Americans suffering from muck sores on their lungs from breathing in the smoke from burning sugar-cane waste."
And who was the lead attorney for Flo-Sun and the sugar interests? Hendrick's old neighbor at the Truman Annex, Joe Klock.
Hendrick moved to his new home near the Casa Marina about two years ago. But before then, back in the early 90s, when he and Klock shared a common client, Pritam Singh, both lived at Singh's complex— Hendrick lived at 330 Caroline, Klock still maintains his home next door at 328 Caroline.
Klock actually works for Steel, Hector & Davis, out of their Miami office. The firm has an office at 309 Whitehead St. Klock's secretary said he left early Tuesday and was unavailable for comment.
But the glib and wise-cracking Hendrick was available for comment, maintaining that his intentions have continued to be in the best interests of the county, despite his friendship with Klock and despite Klock's sugar clients.
Several environmentalists said they believed they recognized "Klock's writing style" in the district brief. "There's got to be some tie to Klock," said Barley.
Not so, Hendrick contends. "Joe Klock is a close personal friend of mine," he said. "I have a lot of close personal friends, on all sides, and I don't care who the attorneys' clients are."
As for how the county belatedly found itself conjoined with the district— when Hendrick came before the commission last month, he name-dropped his former assistant, Ralf Brookes, as someone who would be involved in the "amicus" brief for the water district.
Deborah Harrison, of the World Wildlife Fund's Florida Keys field office, said at the time she was surprised that Hendrick would cite an attorney known for his favorable environmental credentials in support of the brief for the district.
Brookes reacted similarly. "I had nothing to do with the brief, but I thought if it was filed, it would be on the side of the (environmental) plaintiffs against the district," he said.
However, Hendrick said Tuesday he doesn't "know what Ralf (Brookes) was thinking," saying he had thoroughly discussed the brief with him.
He also mysteriously suggested to the board at the time that the county "had been asked to intervene" on behalf of the water district, but never revealed who the asker was. And when confronted with the question who asked him to file the brief against Barley's class-action lawsuit, he had memory problems.
"I just got off the plane from Europe and I don't remember who asked me," he said at the time. Despite that, he said he was "quite proud" that he filed the brief.
On Tuesday, Hendrick was clearly getting tired of the question, but his memory had apparently returned after the jet-lag. "No one asked me to intervene," he said firmly.
As for the earlier "amicus" brief, the attorney was almost defiant. He admitted that "this was one case where we were on the side of Big Sugar and no one called us on it."
Hendrick insisted he did the right thing and said he had the commission's support despite Neugent's lack of recall.
"Gov. Kirk's nuisance complaint, using common law nuisance theory, would have derailed the anti-pollution work in the Everglades Agricultural Area," he said.
He said he filed the brief to defend the protection of the Everglades. "What the role of an `amicus' brief means is that you are a friend of the court, not a friend of Big Sugar," he said.
"It's to provide the court with perspective and report on the prior history of our filing. It had nothing to do with funding of the Everglades, but requiring the administrative process be followed. And the supreme court essentially agreed with our position."
Commissioner Dixie Spehar shook her head at Hendrick's apparent pro-sugar positions. "He still defends why he did what he did. I do not understand— but once burned, twice shy," she said. "I trusted him."
She said she disagrees with Hendrick's insistence that the Polluter Pays amendment could have broad, negative consequences with Keys funding. "I just feel the (Barley's) action was site-specific," she said. "It's like comparing apples and oranges. I disagree totally with his philosophy."
She said the commission has always been on the side of the environment. "It was clear the voters, nearly 83 percent of them, said Big Sugar should pay for their pollution."
Commissioner Murray Nelson had earlier said he would not have supported the brief had he known who the opponents were. Commissioner Sonny McCoy said he is just glad the earlier issue has gone away. He acknowledged that it looked like the county attorney had sided with Big Sugar, but "I don't think there was a tie-in there."
When contacted earlier, Commissioner Nora Williams said she agreed with Hendrick's call for the brief with the district, but did not agree with the wording of the document.
The commission never got to "revisit" the item anyway, or vote it down. On June 20, before the commission's regular meeting, Hendrick announced the withdrawal of the brief.
Barley and her attorneys had signed up to address the issue, but left after learning Hendrick had officially withdrawn the brief. However, Barley said Tuesday they were unhappy to learn afterwards that Hendrick defended his earlier actions, after the opponents had left and despite calls by commissioners that the issue was no longer relevant.