Term Limits Affirmed – Levy Removed from Council
David Levy
As you may know, the 4th District Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge’s ruling that only a current term of office would count against the two term limit, and that 4 term Concilman David Levy had been eligible to run. The 3 Judge panel sent the case back to Trial Judge Martin Colin for action.
Today, Judge Colin ruled on one of two issues – that David Levy should be removed from office.
The second question – as to how the seat will be filled will be decided in the near future.
Plaintiff Carl Wood, the only remaining candidate from the March election after Kevin Easton withdrew and David Levy has been ruled ineligible, argues that he should be seated immediately.
The City on the other hand, represented by Attorney Max Lohman, is arguing that a special election is now required, open to any and all candidates interested in running.
Judge Colin has asked that written arguments and precedents in case law be supplied on the second question by next week and he will decide it in an expedited manner.
Seating Mr. Woods now seems like the obvious course of action to us. It is true that none of the three candidates on the ballot received a majority of the votes, and the judge previously decided that votes for Kevin Easton (who had withdrawn) should be considered in the totals implying a runoff election was necessary. But the runoff would have been between Levy and Woods. Now, with Levy ineligible, there is only one candidate remaining – so he should be declared the winner, much as Maria Marino was declared the winner when Takeeta Pang withdrew.
The city though has a different view – they appear to be so opposed to seating Mr. Woods that they are willing to spend even more taxpayer money on a special election on top of what they have contributed to the legal fees incurred in support of David Levy. It is not clear to us why the city even has a dog in this fight. With term limits decisively affirmed, and Mr. Levy removed, what do they seek to achieve?
Martino: The Charter is Clear! Why Appeal?
I have a question for anyone who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, and above all, our esteemed City Council. The question is, “Wouldn’t it be nice if the City Council could get acquainted with the City Charter, particularly, its words and their meaning?” Well, in my opinion, apparently with all their “experience” the current Council members have yet to master many of the words and much of the meaning of the City Charter.
Case in point is the bungling and embarrassment surrounding the March 15th 2016 City CouncilSeat 4 election. There were 15,970 total votes cast in this election contest as certified by the election canvas board. David Levy, the incumbent, received 6642 votes (41.6%) and Carl Woods the challenger, received 6256 votes (39.2%). Neither received a majority of the votes cast.
In Article IV: The City Council, Section 4-1. – Election the City Charter clearly states, in plain everyday good old-fashioned English, that it is a requirement for a candidate to receive a majority of the votes cast. When this does not occur, the Charter states a runoff election must be held. When the City Council and its Administration decided to play politics with the results of the March 15th Seat 4 election and not hold a runoff election as the Charter mandates, Carl Woods filed a lawsuit to establish his right to a runoff election. A Circuit Court judge ruled the City must obey its Charter and schedule a runoff election between Messieurs Levy and Woods. But lo and behold, the City Council and its Administration refuse to believe the Judge can read and so they have voted to appeal his decision.
That raises questions, questions, and more questions! Is the City Council dwarfing the will of the people’s Charter by trying to produce a dictatorial end that they, each of them, seek? Why involve the City in continuous, contentious, and costly litigation? I wonder if power has something to do with it. Are the Council members protecting one of their own, David Levy, the City Clerk, or perhaps both? Who is paying for David Levy’s personal lawyer, who incidentally, is affiliated with a law firm that regularly appears before the City Council on behalf of developers?
From my perspective, there is something very ominous in this dereliction of trust in the City Charter by the Gardens’ City Council. Is it a deliberate and direct falsification of the Charter’s words and meaning to support personal power and ambition? Is it a direct attempt to discount the will of the voter by sowing the seeds of discord and confusion? Is it none of this but simply plain incompetence? Only the City Council can give the correct answer but they never do.
This City Council never fails to disappoint. I have said this before, but I shall say it again – and again – and again. Collectively, this is an arrogant City Council that does not respect the sacred trust that was given to them upon their individual election. Palm Beach Gardens’ residents deserve better.
Palm Beach Post Endorses Term Limits for Gardens Council
On Thursday October 9, the Palm Beach Post endorsed the Gardens term limits initiative which will appear on the fall ballot. You will find the two questions (term limits and making them apply to current council members) at the very end of the three page ballot when you vote.
Reasons for Opposing Ordinance 20, 2012 – Changes to the PBG Charter
- The ballot language is ambiguous and misleading. Neither of the two Propositions have an accompanying summary paragraph of 75 words or less. Referencing sections of Ordinance 20, 2012 does not seem to provide an explanation of the numerous changes in Proposition One nor does it explain the impacts of changing from majority to plurality for Proposition Two.
- There is no list of the substantive changes incorporated in Proposition One. The new wording in Proposition One is better than the “repeal and replace” language of the first draft – however all the charter changes persist. Some are just cleanup, but substantive changes remain, among them: modifying how vacancies are filled, removing the requirement for Charter reviews, non-interference clauses with the City Manager, and removing both the residency and performance review requirements for the City Manager. In the interest of transparency – both the Council and the Public should be able to articulate all of the major changes.
- Voter fatigue. The Council expressed worry about voter fatigue. We will have a multi-page ballot in November. Many people will stop at the President or Congressional races. We will all be inundated with calls and mailings about all of the races and state and county questions. We will have little bandwidth for either of the City propositions. The voters will be uninformed.
- Proposition Two is a “Incumbent Councilman Protection Act”. Separating Proposition Two as a separate question is a positive step. However Proposition Two is still changing the Elections process from majority to plurality – which could otherwise be known as the Council Incumbency Protection Act. In the guise of concern for saving the taxpayer perhaps a dollar per person for a run-off election that might occur every few years – this greatly increases the difficulty in defeating an incumbent. Proposition Two allows an incumbent to win with much less than a majority of votes if they can successfully split the opposition.
- Public input was not sought at all in this process that began at the end of 2010! Several on the Council have said that the Charter is the peoples’ document but the only people that have had input to this are the City Attorney, the City Manager the Council itself. Prior work from Charter Review committees was not taken into account.
Proposed Charter Replacement
At the June 7 Council meeting, Ordinance 20, 2012 to authorize a ballot question to “Repeal and Replace” the current city charter that has been in place since 1976 was passed on first reading by a vote of 4-0 (Eric Jablin was absent). Many citizens turned out to oppose or question this move.
As a result of the citizens who spoke out, the City Attorney, Max Lohman, conducted an informational meeting on June 27th, and provided office hours for those who wanted to meet with him individually.
The charter information page for the city includes links to the existing charter, an annotated version of changes to the existing charter, a revised version of Ordinance 20, 2012 (post first-reading) and a revised version of the proposed new charter (post first-reading). For those of you who were unable to attend the informational meeting held on June 27th – there is also a complete audio of the meeting.
The 2nd reading of Ordinance 20, 2012 will be held on Thursday, July 12th at the City Hall, as part of the normal monthly City Council meeting.
There are now two ballot propositions:
PROPOSITION ONE
SHALL THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, ADOPTED IN 1976, BE AMENDED AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE 20,2012 OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS?
___ YES – In favor of adopting amendments to the City Charter
___ NO – Not in favor of adopting amendments to the City Charter
and
PROPOSITION TWO
SHALL THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4-1 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3 OF ORDINANCE 20,2012 OF THE CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS TO PROVIDE THAT THE METHOD OF ELECTION OF CITY COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL BE BY A PLURALITY VOTE RATHER THAN BY A MAJORITY VOTE?
___ YES – In favor of adopting amendment to the City Charter
___ NO – Not in favor of adopting amendment to the City Charter
CLICK HERE for the complete Agenda Item including the discussion of the 1st reading, the public meeting, the proposed roll-out schedule and the Ordinance 20, 2012 as well as exhibit A.
Materials Developed by PBGWatch Team
- Summary of Substantive and Technical Issues in Proposed Charter Revision, from Meg Shannon
- Summary of Substantive and Technical Issues in Proposed Charter Revision, 6/24/12 Update from Meg Shannon after meeting with City Attorney
Reference Material
- Meg suggested that the Florida Municipal Officials’ Manual, developed by the League of Cities, provides an excellent reference to understand the structure, roles and powers of city government.