If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
UPDATED: The probable-cause affidavit (click link) was just released by the State Attorney's Office. It details how Wasserman-Rubin voted to approve millions in county bond money on three grants written by her husband, Richard Rubin, that netted him three $15,000 bonuses from the Town of Southwest Ranches. It also alleges that Wasserman-Rubin used her position in other ways to benefit her husband. "Wasserman-Rubin was a vocal advocate and valuable asset to her husband and the Town as a member of the Commission...," SAO investigator Joseph Roubicek writes in the seven-page indictment. "On February 15, 2005, Wasserman-Rubin again caused a grant application written by her husband to be added to the Commission agenda which directed staff to take the necessary steps to place a 9.03 acre parcel (CL-461) in the Town [Southwest Ranches] into the Bond program's conservation land inventory because it contained a significant archeologically [sic] site in the Town. Wasserman-Rubin spoke passionately about the archeological significance of the site, urging her fellow commissioners to take the requested action and the Commission, including Wasserman-Rubin, voted to approve the item." The affidavit confirms that Richard Rubin made an obscene $1.1 million in taxpayers' money for writing grants for Southwest Ranches -- and that the couple used the money to pay for artwork, cruises, European vacations, and a $150,000 home addition. And they were in-your-face with the conflict. Before one of her conflicted votes, Wasserman-Rubin, her husband, her daughter-in-law, and her grandson led the commission in a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, according to Roubicek. The affidavit also implies that Wasserman-Rubin wasn't truthful in testimony before the Commission on Ethics regarding her votes. "Wasserman-Rubin publicly acknowledged in a proceeding before the Commission on Ethics that she knew she was voting on
his grant applications was not for her benefit, nor did it provide an additional benefit to him beyond his salary. She said that her husband contributed approximately $3,200 a month towards household finances."
The SAO investigation discovered otherwise.
"In fact, between 2003 and 2008, the Rubins paid for artwork, vacations, trips to Europe, cruises, home renovations, and furniture with the money he received from the Town," Roubicek wrote. "Three days after Wasserman-Rubin's votes [to approve one of her husband's grant proposals] the Rubins embarked on a $150,000 home addition. Wasserman-Rubin's [sic] corruptly intended to obtain a benefit for her husband and herself by voting for the Town's grant applications written by her husband."