Miami Herald: Convicted Hollywood commissioner may take case to Supreme Court

The Miami Herald published this article on October 30, 2009

Former Hollywood City Commissioner Keith Wasserstrom had declared in city meetings and on forms that he would not earn money from Schwing-Bioset, the sludge-processing firm, being awarded the contract, but that his law firm represented a Schwing lobbyist.

Wasserstrom lobbied city staff and pushed at meetings for Schwing to win the contract even though the company would cost the city $5 million more than the firm preferred by city staff. Prosecutors argued that Wasserstrom hid that his law firm would receive money for any other city that piggybacked on the city’s contract with Schwing — though Wasserstrom never received any money.

The appeals court wrote that “to prove official misconduct, th e State was not required to demonstrate that Wasserstrom was compensated unlawfully for the Hollywood contract. Instead, the State was only required to show that Wasserstrom had the intent that a benefit would accrue to anyone including (but not limited to) Wasserstrom or his uncle.”

Wasserstrom had a contract with Goldman to represent his company in return for half the money Goldman received for contracts in cities other than Hollywood.

Wasserstrom said losing his appeal was a setback.

“This whole case has been crazy from the get-go if you think about what happened,” he said. “It’s not over yet. … You have a conflict of interest, you disclose a conflict of interest at a meeting and somehow you are pending 60 days in jail? It’s a very weird situation. I followed the advice of counsel, I did everything we are supposed to do, lost my law license, lost my job, lost my position, ruined my reputation.”

Wasserstrom, who remains living in Hollywood, said he has been working on an internet related business” for over a year but declined to be specific.

Last year, a Broward judge last year ordered Wasserstrom to pay about $24,000 in court costs for expert witness fees and photocopying. But Wasserstrom didn’t have to pay pending the outcome of the appeal.