Martino: Vote NO, NO, and NO!
Posted by Michael Martino on August 21, 2018 · 6 Comments
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, Election Day, Vote NO to Charter Question #1! Vote NO to Charter Question #2! Vote NO to Charter Question #3! That’s how “TOGETHER WE CAN FIX OUR CHARTER”. The City Council has again sent “slick” campaign-style brochures to our homes deceptively asking for our vote to “fix” a charter that is not broken, particularly, in the areas they suggest.
NO to Question #1! It changes existing City Council members’ term limits of two consecutive 3-year terms that approximately 16,000 registered voters, or 80% of those that cast ballots, approved in 2014 to three consecutive 3-year terms. Why? How is that a “fix”? Council members need more time to do what? If you can’t do what in 6 years is it worth doing? These five Council members were very well aware of the existing Term Limit Law when they asked for the voters trust and have not even completed one 3-year term. And they want more time!
NO to Question #2! It is a consortium of changes some of which are minor but others that could obviate City employee rights. It is an unhealthy menu of confusion dressed up to appear as a “fix”.
NO to Question #3! It is farcical to suggest that this question will “fix the City Manager contract process”. There is no contract process to “fix” per se and annual reviews of the City Manager are routine. It simply is another attempt to eliminate residency requirements for the City Manager. Leaving the residency requirement in the Charter is not a detriment but offers clarity to the people and to the employee under consideration
In case you did not know it is against the law for the City Council to solicit votes. They are allowed to authorize and/or provide basic election information to the public and nothing more. The City is spending over $100,000 to “educate” the electorate on why our City Charter needs a “fix”. None of that $100,000 expenditure was approved at a regular advertised Council meeting to my knowledge. The City’s contract vendor who is creating this “fix” illusion has been linked with a Political Action Committee, a PAC, which has reportedly received $13,750 mostly from City developers and landowners. An employee of this same City contract vendor is listed as the Treasurer of this PAC. Volunteers for this PAC were passing out City sponsored election guides and erecting misleading election signs encouraging a Yes vote on the Charter questions. Yet the City, the contract vendor, and the PAC, incredibly claim no affiliation and/or coordination exists between them. Further, we should recall that the Courts threw out two of four similar Charter questions in March 2018. One of the surviving March questions is before the Fourth District Court of Appeals for adjudication. How can we be sure that these new questions have judicial validity?
Before voting on these “fix” questions please consider the above. However, the real and basic questions to consider are why this “fix” now, and who benefits from this “fix”. It appears to me that the current City Council members would be big beneficiaries. They get to keep collecting their approximately $30,000 part-time salaries for 9 years which equals $270,000 which does not include their yearly automatic raises. They also would continue to receive their approximately $30,000 benefit package which is another $270,000 for a total of $540,000. If they sit-out 3 years and get elected again that gravy train keeps on rolling for another 9 years and they bank another $540,000 salary and benefit package. How does 18 years and $1,080,000 comport with term limits? It doesn’t! And the current City Council members can continue with their perceived power while carousing with and satisfying the developers and landowners who contribute large sums to their campaigns, as exampled above.
I see no benefit or “fix” for the people whose home rule rights are guaranteed in the City Charter. Rather those home rule rights would be diminished and some would disappear.
Preserve Your Home Rule Rights; Vote NO, NO, and NO on Tuesday, August 28, 2018.
As usual Mayor Martino is dead wrong. It is absolutely ridiculous to have such short term limits. Do we really want a council that has no institutional knowledge, that is completely inexperienced and can be dominated by the City Manager. Mayor Martino do you purposely look for doctors right our of med school? Oh shoot they got experience during their residency. Too much experience for you. There is a reason that engineers have to work in the field 7 years before they can get their professional certification. The key to a well run government is not a revolving door council. We as residents should be demanding 12 or 15 year term limits. As far as Question 2 goes, Mayor Martino wants a charter that doesn’t comply with state law and has to be ignored. Great idea Mike. As far as Question 3 goes, that is the voters personal preference. The residency requirement really should be in the contract not the charter but the US Constitution does have the natural born citizen clause.
Mr Levy,
It’s pretty obvious that this push for term limits is a partnership between the city council and the local real estate developers. I think Mr Martino is incorrect that the city council has the most to gain. In reality, it’s the real estate developers who have the most to gain – if they can effectively buy city council members and keep them in office longer then it’s a win-win for city council and the developers.
My statement is evidenced by the fact that both PACs working in favor of these charter changes are almost entirely bankrolled by RE development companies- mainly those developing the area by Donald Ross (Kolter, Alton, Hawkeye, etc). Those same real estate developers have consistently contributed to the campaigns of city council members both current and former.
The opposition to these ballot questions is mostly funded by individuals living within the city – Kevin Easton, Sid Dinerstein, etc. Actual voters. When they fought to have the term limits put in place they contributed their own money, collected signatures, and they were voted on and passed. How many signatures were collected to put these questions on the ballot? How much money has been contributed to the campaign for these ballot questions by private citizens living in our city? The answer to both questions is: Zilch. Have you contributed to the campaign for these questions? Doubtful.
This is a clear cut case of the city council abusing their power to push through changes that people don’t want for the benefit of themselves and the parties that contribute to them.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Ben
As for #3, I am not sure. The PBG city limits are so close to NPB, Lake Park and Jupiter. In fact, sometimes it is hard to know what city you are in. The developers were able to call some developments that are south of Northlake Blvd as PBG. (Garden Oaks) The Panama Hattie’s site is not in PBG. but in an incorporated pocket. Lake Catherine is in PBG while Sun Terrace, right next door is in Lake Park. Why limit where the City Manager lives if the city limits are so close to each other?
Why not let the contract spell out where the person should live. As I pointed out above, there are areas that are not listed as being in Palm Beach Gardens, but looking at a map they might as well be.
Hey, David Levy. We voted for term limits because council members want to make this a life-long position. We voted for it! Now you and your cohorts use deceitful language in an attempt to trick us into voting to keep your cushy lifestyles. And you use our money to do it! That is the ultimate in arogance. I can’t wait to vote all of you losers out of office. I’d vote you out of the city if I could.
Hey, Robert Lynch. Question 1 doesn’t end term limits it just extends them to a more reasonable time so we don’t have a revolving door council. I’m not on the council anymore so the term limits hove no effect on me. I want good government and 6 year council maximums are bad government. As far as a cushy lifestyle, guess what: My 12 years on the council cost me hundreds of thousand of dollars. My income has tripled since I left the council. No conflict of interest anymore and the time to do my own work which makes me a heck of a lot more money than my council salary. My last comment to you is that those with no valid arguments resort to insults and threats. Furthermore, for those people reading these blogs please note Mr. Robert Lynch has resorted to both insults and threats meaning he has no valid arguments. Vote yes on Question 1 to improve our municipal government.
If former councilman Levy, disagrees with former Mayor Martino, that means only one thing…the mayor is right! PBG residents vote NO on this power grab.