August 28 Ballot has 3 PB Gardens Referendum Questions
Posted by PBG Watch on July 25, 2018 · 2 Comments
Whether one has a partisan or non-partisan ballot when you vote by mail, early voting or on the Primary Election Day on 8/28, there will be 3 questions pertaining to the Palm Beach Gardens City Charter at the end of your ballot. Please get familiar with the questions and VOTE.
The City has once again come out with an updated flashy website entitled Fix Our Charter. Here, however is a link to the unenhanced Elections Page which includes images of the sample ballot questions, Notice of Elections (as to be published in the Palm Beach Post in upcoming weeks) and a link to Exhibit A, Ordinance 8, 2018 – which is referenced in Question 2 and is the existing Charter annotated with the proposed changes in Question 2.
Here are the 3 questions as they appear in the Notice of Election:
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REFERENDUM QUESTION NO. 1
SHALL THE PALM BEACH GARDENS CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING TERM LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM BEING ELECTED TO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS TO A TERM LIMIT THAT PROHIBITS A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM SERVING FOR MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS AND MAKING THE CHANGE APPLY TO ALL SITTING COUNCIL MEMBERS?
SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED QUESTION NO. 1 BE ADOPTED?
YES
NO
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REFERENDUM QUESTION NO. 2
SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE PROVISIONS THAT ARE OUTDATED, UNNECESSARY OR CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW INCLUDING MUNICIPALITY, CITY CLERK, AND CITY TREASURER SPECIFIC POWERS/DUTIES; OATH OF OFFICE; MERIT SYSTEM; PROCEDURE REMOVING COUNCILMEN, QUALIFICATION OF ELECTORS, COUNCIL MEETING AND PROCEDURE, AND OTHER PROVISIONS; REVISE COUNCIL-MANAGER RELATIONSHIP; CHANGE FILLING OF VACANCIES; LIMIT INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM; DEFINE “FULL TERM”; REMOVE COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF EMPLOYEES AND OTHER CHANGES; AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT A, ORDINANCE 8?
SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED QUESTION NO. 2 BE ADOPTED?
YES
NO
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REFERENDUM QUESTION NO. 3
SHALL THE PALM BEACH GARDENS CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE A RESIDENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF APPOINTMENT AND INSTEAD PROVIDE THAT ANY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE CITY MANAGER BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT?
SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED QUESTION NO. 3 BE ADOPTED?
YES
NO
Points to consider:
- See our position on Question 1 entitled Vote NO on PBG Q1 – Two 3-Year Terms Are Enough!
- Question 2 is a complete rewrite of the City Charter – which is its Constitution. The wording of the question now reflects all the areas of the charter which are modified and/or deleted. Now is a good time to refresh yourself on the charter itself and read the proposed charter with all modifications annotated. Not all of the changes are a result of state statute. The proposed charter retains the requirement for future charter reviews on a 5-year cycle.
- Question 3 – City Manager Residence – the current charter requires that the City Manager become a resident of the City within 1 year. A YES vote on this question will remove the requirement and make City residence a contract negotiation – which means a City Manager in theory could be hired without ever having to live in the city and leaves the decision up to the then seated Council. Proponents argue that a most qualified candidate for the position shouldn’t be rejected just because they live outside the city boundaries and shouldn’t be forced to move, depending on house, family or other situations. Opponents argue that the City Manager should live in the area they manage and be impacted by the same decisions they impose on others, as well as be in the city during emergencies (eg hurricanes).
I totally agree with you on saying ‘No’ to question 1.
Can you give us the pros and cons of Question 2 & 3.
Thanks a million.
Hi Samer – on question 3 above we’ve described proponents and opponents positions.
Question 2 covers a lot of ground as it is an entire rewrite – while some of the changes are due to state statute, others, like the definition of a term, removing references to a merit system, and describing how vacancies on the council are filled are policy changes that each could have a discussion in their own right. Any one of them could be a reason to vote no or yes depending on your opinion of the topic. At least now, unlike in March when a judge ruled the question invalid, the question lists the key areas that are being changed, and an annotated charter is provided for the voters’ reference.