Gardens Election Lawsuit Continues

In response to the city’s expenditure of taxpayer money on a campaign to pass the three ballot amendments, thinly desguised as an “education” campaign, a lawsuit was filed in advance of the election.  It was triggered when the PAC “Voters in Control” started posting misleading signs at the early voting sites and hiring campaigners to wear tee-shirts with misleading information to wave them.

The lawsuit charges illegal use of taxpayer money and violations of the laws regarding government funding for advocacy of one side of a referendum question, and asked that the questions be thrown out, the vote not be tallied, and the PAC and the city be enjoined from continuing their illegal activity. The City of Palm Beach Gardens, the Supervisor of Election, the Canvassing Board and the “Voters in Control” PAC were all named as defendants.

The matter came before a judge in the final days before the election as an emergency pleading, but with early and absentee voting mostly done, the request to stop the canvassing was denied. Today, the parties agreed that SOE and the Canvassing Board would be dropped from the suit “without predjudice”, and Judge Peter Blanc would accept a motion to file a second amended complaint from the plaintiff in the next 20 days, the defendants would then have 30 days to respond, with a hearing within 45 days.

Some of this is moot as two of the three proposals have been soundly rejected by the voters. (See earlier article). What remains could include a challenge to the one that passed (Question 2), and the matter of a penalty for the City and PAC for illegal activity, depending on what the plaintiff, Sid Dinerstein decides to put in the amended complaint.

The whole exercise of a newly elected council trying to significantly weaken the term limits proposal passed by 80% of the voters was at least distasteful if not corrupt. Spending over $100K of taxpayer money to promote this flawed activity was outrageous. Thankfully, the voters are not stupid and let these 4 Council members know what they thought of it. (Council member Matthew Lane opposed placing it on the ballot).

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit progresses.  Here is the Palm Beach Post summary of today’s hearing.

Palm Beach Gardens Results – Q1-NO; Q2-Yes; Q3-NO

The voters of Palm Beach Gardens, 28% of those registered, made their positions known. The turnout for the Primary/Special Election was certainly greater than we in PBGWatch expected. The results for all 3 questions were definitive. See the chart below. We will update the website with a more detailed analysis of the results by precinct when the information becomes available. Sarah Peters of the Palm Beach Post included comments from Mayor Marino and Sid Dinerstein in her article.

Legal action continues:

• “The questions are the subject of an unresolved lawsuit filed by Dinerstein days before the election alleging that city-produced flyers, robocalls and information on the city’s website wrongly advocated for the passage of the questions rather than educating the public”. There is a hearing on Friday, 8/31 on the lawsuit.
• Also unresolved is a second lawsuit by Mr. Dinerstein, currently in the 4th District Court of Appeals, regarding what was Question 3 in March – the ‘sit-out and run-again’ provision.

Summarizing:

• Palm Beach Gardens current and future council members can only serve for two-consecutive three year terms- unchanged – 65.5% NO
• Palm Beach Gardens City Managers must reside in the City, and must move there if not already a resident, within 1 year – unchanged – 70% NO
• Palm Beach Gardens Charter will be replaced by the one approved by the voters, meeting state statutes, removing outdated provisions and including other changes such as how vacancies are filled, definiton of a term, and other changes unrelated to statutes/updates. – 60% YES

Thanks to all the voters who did their research and voted on these issues.

Martino: Propaganda and Deception – Vote NO NO NO

The twin spigots of propaganda and deception surrounding the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens unrelenting march to change term limits to match the craving of the incumbents and developers while dwarfing the desires of 80% of the 2014 voters have again sparked controversy that has led to the Courthouse for resolution. The August 28, 2018 three question City Charter Referendum election has been legally challenged by a private citizen of Palm Beach Gardens.

The basis for the challenge, as I understand it to be, is misuse of public funds to pay for a public information campaign deceptively disguised as a solicitation campaign for votes to support approval to push for the passage of three City Charter questions. A local government cannot use public funds for vote solicitation.

In analyzing the three propaganda brochures sent to our homes and the City’s “information” materials on its website it is obvious that the City Council is using their appointed Charter Review Committee as a foil and their recommendations as a shield to justify these three City Charter questions. They are hiding the facts that their appointed appointed Citizens Charter Review Committee was less than representative of the entire City and had two City lobbyists from the business and development communities as members, one of whom is not a city resident. The City Council has not stipulated as information that recommendations from appointed committees are not mandates to the City Council or its constituents and that it is not a requirement, legal or otherwise, to present a ballot question on any or all of the Charter Committee recommendations.

The question than is why is a City Council that has yet to complete a single term in office so obsessed with these Charter change questions. More particularly, what inspires their obsession with changing the 2014 Term Limit Law that was passed by 80% of those 2014 voters who came to the polls to mandate term limits as then presented. Could it be because the advantage of the changes, particularly to the Term Limits, inure to their benefit and the desires of the developers whose monies are fueling a PAC that is allegedly sponsoring a campaign of confusion and deception concerning these Charter change questions? This same Political Action Committee is alleged to be in collusion and cooperation with the City and its hired Public Relations firm.

Under the developing circumstances the argument of being above personal considerations and purity on the part of the City Council members is difficult to accept. The points of order that the City Council may use to argue for underpinning their contention that it has presented an information campaign and not a political campaign for votes has been debated, exposed, and found to be wanting.

Please vote on August 28, 2018. My recommendation has not changed. Its vote NO, NO, and NO!

Martino: Vote NO, NO, and NO!

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.

Misleading Signage Says Vote YES – Keep Term Limits

Palm Beach Gardens voters may be confused by signs paid for by the Political Committee “Voters in Control“, on their way to the polls…. how can Vote Yes mean Keep Term Limits?

The City already has term limits passed in 2014 by over 16,000 voters, about 80% of the vote – for 2 3-year terms.

Voting YES would CHANGE  term limits by adding a 3rd term.

A NO vote KEEPS term limits the way the voters passed them!!!!!

So who is Voters in Control?

A look at the FEC campaign treasurer reports listed on the City’s website shows that the Treasurer is Kim Lee Bove.  Interestingly enough Kim Lee Bove is Director of Operations at Cornerstone Solutions, LLC – which is the same company that the City hired to ‘market’ the proposed charter changes.

One can review the listed donors in the March and April 2018 reports – the fairly short list includes mostly developers with business before the city. Why would they want council people to serve longer or not have term limits at all?  We can think of lots of reasons…..

Who benefits by misleading the voter?  You decide.

There is nothing wrong with donating to a PAC or having one – but their signage is highly misleading and we think that the voters should know.

Police Life-Saving Action and 12% Salary Increase Bookends Council Meeting

The August 2nd Council Meeting began with an update by Sherri Pla (the City’s Head PGA Professional) on the Junior Ryder Cup Challenge Trip to Scotland. Also covered during Announcements and Presentations were the Florida Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Award (where the Gardens won first place in the category for departments with 101-200 officers) and American Heart Association’s Mission Life Gold Plus Award to Fire/Rescue for the 4th year in a row. Throughout the beginning of the meeting the exclamations of a young child could be heard. Thus Mayor Marino segued to an early City Manager Report.

Quick action by Officer Robert Ayala saved the life of young Lucia Graham while Officer Rafael Guadalupe called for Fire/Rescue and comforted her mother. See Gardens Cops who Saved Choking Baby…. for details and watch the segment of the Council Meeting recounting the event and honoring of these two officers here.

The last item on the Agenda was Resolution 45, 2018 approving and ratifying an agreement with the Police Benevolent Association granting an immediate 12% increase across the board and bringing the City to 2nd in salary only to Boca Raton among the local municipalities. This was presented to the Council as a ‘Fait Accompli’ and it was interesting that none on the Council even questioned the agreement nor addressed the implication on future labor negotiations. The only comments addressed impact on the budget, and then only as a done deal.  See details from the Palm Beach Post here.

All resolutions passed 5:0 including Adoption of 2018-2019 Fees and Charges, the Annual Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, and the first of many to come presentations before the Council on Avenir. City Attorney Lohman also gave an update on the Rustic Lakes Annexation lawsuit, where Rustic Lakes has 20 days to respond to the latest ruling against their suit.

There will be two Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget Hearings on September 6th and 20th.

Please vote on the three Charter Amendments on the ballot on August 28th!