A Disturbing Trend

Over the last 3 months, Mayor Woods has introduced several new agenda items at the beginning of the City Council meetings that have NOT been publicly noticed, nor has the Public had an opportunity to provide Comment – other than those members of the Public he specifically invited to speak in support of his proposals. This is a disturbing practice and should be stopped.

Since being selected Mayor by the Council in April 2020, Carl Woods has done things a little differently. That’s not necessarily bad. We were happy when one of his first actions was to move Items of Resident Interest and Board Committee Reports, to the end of City Council Meeting agendas every month.

When Resolution 37, 2020 was added at the beginning of the May, 2020 meeting entitled “Creating the Economic Recovery Act ‎(ERA)‎ Grant Fund” establishing the Small Business Relief Fund and the Unemployed Resident Fund, it was clear that the North County Chamber, together with the PGA Corridor and the City Manager wanted to act fast to help those impacted by the current shutdown. The Public was NOT able to see these proposals in advance, but fast action seemed appropriate. And the proposal was the work output of the presenters.

A last-minute agenda item was added at the June, 2020 meeting – Resolution 45, 2020 – the creation of the Food Services Stabilization Fund under the City’s existing $1 million Economic Recovery Act. And once again the Public was NOT able to see the proposal in advance – and again – one could overlook the fact that speakers were lined up by the Mayor – PGA Corridor and North County Chamber – if anyone else had an issue with or support for the proposals – there would have been no opportunity for them to have any advance knowledge. But time was of the essence.

But in last week’s July, 2020 meeting – Mayor Woods ‘struck again’ – having City Attorney Lohman draw up in advance Resolution 49, 2020 to name City Hall the Ronald M Ferris Municipal Complex. This was NOT publicly noticed, not seen by the remainder of the Council prior to introduction, and once again Woods orchestrated developers and civic leaders to speak on behalf of his proposal. There was no need to rush, there was no need to leave the public out of the discussion, and no opportunity for anyone to object – had there been objections. Mayor Woods, during the same meeting, once again quoting ‘unheard’ support by the business community and public, introduced a proposal to move the City Council Meetings to 6pm. The motion was introduced, and passed with no Public input.

These actions are legal (see a long standing FL Atty General Advisory Legal Opinion written by then FL AG Charlie Crist. However there is a trend by our Mayor to flaunt the intent of Sunshine laws when in the same opinion it was written:

“The purpose of the notice requirement of the Sunshine Law is “to apprise the public of the pendency of matters that might affect their rights, afford them the opportunity to appear and present their views, and afford them a reasonable time to make an appearance if they wished.”[17] In the spirit of the Sunshine Law, the city commission should be sensitive to the community’s concerns that it be allowed advance notice and, therefore, meaningful participation on controversial issues coming before the commission.”

Perhaps Mayor Woods is unaware of such sensitivities – but especially in light of the current situation in which the Public may not be able to be present at the current Council Meetings and it may take longer to submit public comment in advance, springing un-noticed business on both the Council and Public is unwarranted and presents an unwelcome trend.

Please desist!

NCNC Celebrates Ten Years!

We had the privilege of attending the Annual Meeting of the North County Neighborhood Coalition on Thursday, March 5, 2020. This was the ten year anniversary of the formation of the coalition, which now includes 22 Communities and Associations, 45,000 Residents and 30,000 Voters in northern Palm Beach County. Sal Faso, President, kicked off the meeting and cited elements of their mission “to improve the quality-of-life for residents of North Palm Beach County.” One key element is to increase voter participation, and while Palm Beach County had a 61% turnout at the last election, NCNC Communities totaled 74%!

All members of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council were present at the event, as were other elected and municipality/county officials.

Speaking at the event were three highly accomplished women: Teresa Urquhart, CEO of Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center who described new robotics advances in operations; Kelly Smallridge, CEO of Palm Beach County Business Development Board – who spoke on the efforts to Recruit, Retain and Expand industry in Palm Beach County including activites in north county in the areas of Aerospace, Life Science and Corporate HQ; and Verdenia Baker – County Administrator for Palm Beach County, who summarized the current actions being taken to expand Workforce/Affordable Housing which is sorely needed in the County.

Congratulations to Sal Faso and the rest of the NCNC Board on their success and impact on Northern Palm Beach County!

For more information go to the NCNC Website.

Imperious City Staff Publicly Bullies Two Gardens’ Residents

I’ve attended most City Council meetings in the last 7 or 8 years and watched any that I missed. Thursday night’s unseemly spectacle had staff showing what an avenging government can do to the ‘little people’- squash them like bugs. At the same time, staff displayed fear of those same residents. While tempted to walk out, I felt compelled to sit through the entire dog and pony show as Paula Magnuson and Kevin Easton were humiliated.

In February, the council asked City Manager Ferris to give the Council, for the next meeting, details on the code enforcement activities regarding the Easton properties over the last few years, plus a brief explanation of Ms. Magnuson’s issues. I know that I, along with the referenced parties, expected the subject to be presented in March – which didn’t happen. A brief explanation would have been short, outline key issues and resolutions and stop there.

Instead, the City Manager conducted a 35 minute trial with staff being the prosecutors arguing their cases. Lined up at a table were the City Engineer, Assistant City Manager Stepp, and Assistant City Attorney with additional input from Ferris and City Attorney Max Lohman. The City spent many hours pulling the history and presentation together. There were photographs, anecdotes, charts. And the ‘defendants’ were offered no opportunity for response. Watch the video here.

Surely what transpired was not what the Council requested or expected?  The Council (Matthew Lane had to leave the meeting earlier in observation of Passover) did not stop the presentation – which they certainly could have done.  A couple of the Council looked a bit uncomfortable but that was it. I would have been mortified.  Perhaps Council was reluctant to admonish the City Manager and staff in public – but we, as horrified citizens, would hope that they do so.

In January I penned Whiffs of Aristocracy and Intimidation a New Trend for This Council.  The Council and the City continue to create an environment where we, the residents and taxpayers, are to shut up and behave while they continue their mutual admiration society of perfection.

VOTE BUT VOTE NO ON QUESTIONS 1 THROUGH 4

Palm Beach Gardens has 4 referendum questions on the Tuesday March 13 Municipal Election related to our city’s Charter – which is its constitution. It is vital that you DO VOTE however since so few residents vote in our city’s elections. The Council is taking advantage of the expected extremely low-turnout election with no candidates on the ballot, to get rid of the 2 3-year term limits that more than 16000 of us voted for in November 2014 by adding an additional term and allowing term-limited council members to run again.

They are trying to get rid of “majority wins” (which means 50%+1) by arguing it saves the cost of run-offs which rarely happen; but “majority wins” ensures that the person who is elected is the choice of most of the voters.  The Council does not seem to see the irony in spending the $70,000 or so for the no-candidate election plus the additional $60,000 plus for the related marketing materials – the cost of two run-off elections, in the guise of saving the taxpayer money on future run-offs.

The Council vote was NOT unanimous with Council Member Lane voting NO on all four referendum questions.

The public information campaign will claim that the city’s Charter is simply being modernized – hiding the fact that a yes vote also gets rid of required Charter Reviews, city manager residence, city manager reviews, changing how council vacancies are filled, disenfranchising voters in determining ‘total votes cast’ and more. This was tried previously in November 2012 and rejected by over 11000 of the voters.

Who benefits from all of these changes? The ‘insiders’ and the Council – none of whom have even completed a single term yet.

See details on each ballot question here:

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 1

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 2

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 3

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 4

 

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 1

Why vote NO?  If you don’t know, understand, or agree with what is in the details of the Referendum Question 1 you should vote NO!  And there’s a lot to understand!  This post cannot possibly cover all the changes – but the following are NOT internal consistencies, conflicts with state law, or have anything to do with formatting.  This is a very lengthy post because the simple YES/NO ballot question encompasses so many topics.

Definition of Terms used in the Ballot Question

• The Charter is the City’s Constitution.  It is the City’s framework.
• The Charter Review Committee was an unelected group of 5 individuals appointed by the City Council for a short period to review the current Charter and recommend changes.  They were an unelected body – and 5 other people most likely could have come up with different recommendations.  Two of the members of that committee are lobbyists who represent very large interests that come before the Council.  One of those lobbyists, while a property owner in the city, does not reside nor vote in the Gardens.   They presented a set of recommendations to the Council, most of which were similar to, if not identical, to those recommended by City Attorney Lohman in 2012 and rejected by 11360 voters in November 2012.
• The Charter Review Committees report is just a set of recommendations – it is the Council that decides which if any are to be placed on the ballot and those on the Council are the only ones accountable for what is on the ballot. (Note:  4:1 with Council Member Lane voting NO).
• Exhibit A, referenced in the ballot question, is the proposed replacement Charter.  It does not show what was removed from the current charter – it is a REPEAL AND REPLACE.  And a lot has been repealed!
• As a voter – try and find Ordinance 26, 2017 Exhibit A and the Charter Review Committee Report and any explanation of what was changed although all are referenced in Referendum Question 1*

Need for Charter Reviews

• Currently the Charter is required to be reviewed every 5 years.  THE PROPOSAL REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT TO EVER HAVE A CHARTER REVIEW!  This matters because the only way there would be a charter review in the future is if a sitting  Council votes to initiate one.  Residents’ only  other recourse would be to gather petitions of over 10% of the registered voters in the city to get a charter change on the ballot – a difficult task.  The City is growing rapidly both through annexation plans plus future growth in Avenir, and one could anticipate the need for changes to the government structure such as districts or a strong-mayor and without a Charter Review this will not happen.  The Charter Review Committee recommended that the need for Charter Reviews be maintained in order to maintain trust with the voter, however the City Attorney removed the requirement in developing the proposed replacement Charter.

City Manager Residence and Annual Performance Review

• Controversial in the 2012 ballot question was the proposed removal of the requirement for the City Manager to reside within the City.  Difficulty in finding a qualified resident to fill the position, lack of affordable housing for a prospective City Manager to move here (who in 2017 according to the FL League of cities, earned $225,834.51 with 50.5 sick days, 100% health insurance costs paid and also provided: car, laptop, cell phone, frs retirement, additional retirement package, severance package), or requiring a candidate who lives closeby to move, were discussed as the rationale for removing the requirement. The Council discussed making it a requirement in any prospective City Manager’s contract – but did not pass an ordinance stating that.  They are expecting the residents to ‘trust’ them to do so when negotiating with a future City Manager.  IT WILL NO LONGER BE POLICY.
• Additionally, the proposed Charter no longer references an annual review of the City Manager.  Yes – the City Manager serves at the will and vote of the Council, but a public review, no matter how spurious, forces the Council to at least state their positions on the City Manager’s performance.

Redefining the Definition of a Term

• In the current Charter, a term is what a Council Member is elected to.  There is no parsing parts of a term.  Changed in the proposed charter – is the sentence “Service of one-half or less than one-half of a full three (3) year term shall not count toward the subject term limit.”  The rationale given by the Charter Review Committee was that it is consistent with the 22nd Amendement to the US Constitution for President.  But discussion rationale by the CRC was that someone may leave office for illness or some other reason and should not be term-limited by having been elected to two consecutive terms and not serving at least 1 1/2 years of the final term.  At the same time, they felt it was reasonable, if one has served over 1 1/2 terms, that a council member should be considered to have served two consecutive terms to avoid situations like arose when one on the council resigned to run after having served almost his complete term.

Redefining ‘A Majority of Votes Cast’

• The current charter states that “the candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast at such a election to fill such office will be declared to be duly elected.”  Majority means getting 50% plus 1 of the votes cast.
• A real-life example of a situation where a candidate was named the ‘winner’ by the City Clerk (and then removed by the courts for a different reason) was the March 2016 election between David Levy and Carl Woods.  Kevin Easton withdrew after ballots had already been printed and absentee ballots sent out.  Almost 8% of the voters legitimately cast their votes for Mr. Easton – because they either supported him, or were voting ‘None of the above’.  In this result, Mr. Levy only received 47% of the majority of votes cast and thus it could be argued that he did NOT receive the majority of votes cast and should not have been seated.  The voters cast legitimate votes and these would be discarded, and those voters disenfranchised by the proposed wording in Exhibit A.  
• Note the very lengthy new wording in the proposed charter in order to avoid future court challenges:

If death, withdrawal or removal from the ballot of a qualified candidate occurs after the ballots have been submitted for printing, have been printed, and/or after the deadline for mailing vote by mail ballots, any such previously qualified candidate shall no longer be considered and Commented [RML4]: This single sentence, along with Section 4-1 imbues the city council with all of the legal authority that it may currently possess pursuant to the Florida Constitution and general law. Commented [RML5]: Amended to allow the timing of the election to be changed by ordinance. Amended to provide for the method of qualification to be established by ordinance in accordance with Section 100.3605, F.S. shall no longer be a candidate, qualified or otherwise, for the office for which their name appeared on the subject ballot. Such deceased, withdrawn, disqualified, or removed candidate shall be defined as and referred to as a “former candidate.” Accordingly, votes cast for or ballots submitted in favor of any former candidate shall not be counted in the total number of votes and/or ballots. No vote for a former candidate shall count or contribute toward the total number of votes, number of under votes, or number of overvotes. A ballot marked, annotated, or which in any way could be interpreted to constitute a vote in favor of a former candidate shall be treated as a nullity, as it relates to that specific contest for election. It is the express intent of the City of Palm Beach Gardens that votes cast and ballots submitted for a former candidate shall have no effect on the outcome or results of any city election. This provision shall be strictly construed by all courts having jurisdiction in the State of Florida.

Changing How  a Vacancy is Filled

• Currently, if there is a vacancy on the council, it may be filled by appointment of a temporary new council person until an election can be held to fill the vacancy.  It shall be held within 60 days after the vacancy unless there is an upcoming election within 180 days.  The proposed change would have the temporary council person serve until the next scheduled general municipal election as follows

The city council or so much of it as shall remain, shall have the power by a majority vote of the remaining members to fill a vacancy on the council by the appointment of a qualified elector to hold such office until the next available general municipal election when a successor shall be elected and take office. Should the council decline to fill a vacancy, the vacant seat shall be filled by a successor at the next available general municipal election. The successor so elected shall then serve the remaining portion of the three- (3) year term for the council seat in which the vacancy occurred.

The public information campaign will claim that the city’s Charter is simply being modernized – hiding the fact that a yes vote also gets rid of required Charter Reviews, city manager residence, city manager reviews, changing how council vacancies are filled, disenfranchising voters in determining ‘total votes cast’ and more.

This was tried previously in November 2012 and rejected by over 11000 of the voters.

*References:

• Current charter annotated to show what was altered or removed
• Exhibit “A” – The proposed charter, annotated to describe some of the changes but not showing what was removed from current charter
• Note – in order to understand the scope of all of the changes one must read both of the above documents.

 

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 2

 

 

In reading the above Referendum Question No 2 is it obvious to you that the City already has Term Limits of 2 consecutive 3-year terms?

• Sure doesn’t read like that.  So if you aren’t already aware that Term Limits was just on the ballot as recently as in November 2014, and passed by 16,186 voters, over 79% of those voting in a General Election, you would never know it.  
• None of those currently on the Palm Beach Gardens City Council have even completed their first 3-year term
• We expect a very low turnout election on March 13, where there is nothing on the ballot but proposed changes to the City’s Charter.  Thus, the will of over 16,000 voters who voted for 2 3-year terms may be over-ridden by as few as half of the turnout – which we estimate may be as low as 1000 voters.  So it’s possible for 501 voters to over-turn 2 3-year terms and change it to 3 3-year terms.  IS THIS RIGHT OR FAIR?
• More people signed the petitions to get Term Limits on the November 2014 ballot than will probably vote to alter it in March.  IS THIS RIGHT OR FAIR?
• Rationale given by four on the Council (Matthew Lane voting NO) by placing it on the ballot was:
  • The Charter Review Committee, appointed by the Council, recommended it.  While this was discussed in depth by the Committee, there were no true opponents in voting for a longer serving time by any on the committee who voted unanimously.  There was no strong opposition to changing what was just passed recently and a different mix of members on the CRC may have voted differently.
  • The Charter Review Committee acknowledged that incumbents almost always get re-elected.  Thus they knew that they were granting the current council, not a disinterested group, an additional term.  And some on the CRC were lobbyists doing business before the City.
  • Some on the Council suggested that voters weren’t given a list of options in 2014 so perhaps they didn’t really understand that they were voting for 2 3-year terms and might have wanted longer terms or more terms.
  • Voters were only voting for term limits because they really want them in Congress so they were taking out their wrath on local officials.
  • Council members NEED more time to see the results of their actions and to overcome the steep learning curve in their positions.  Learning curve?  So should we cast out all of their votes in their first terms since they were ignorant and unqualified?
• Passage of this question 2, along with Referendum Question No 3, would allow Council to serve indefinitely, with a 3-year sit-out between  limited-terms.  So serve 9 years, take a break, serve another 9 ad infinitum.  Sound like Term Limits to you?
• Most of the text of the ballot question references retroactivity and most of the discussion by Council centered around that point because they didn’t want past council members, themselves or future council members to have an unfair advantage in a perceived flaw in the existing Charter wording.

Who benefits from this change?  Clearly the incumbents and clearly the various interested parties with business before the Council who want stability.

 

 

 

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 3

VOTE NO ON QUESTION NO 3

The ballot question says that the current charter does not specify the minimum time that a term limited council member must be out of office before running again.  Is this true?  We think not and that the Ballot question is misleading.

• The current charter states “No individual shall be elected to the office of council member for more than two (2) consecutive full terms.”
• It has been interpreted that the 4th District Court of Appeals in deciding Levy v. Woods determined that 2 consecutive terms IS the limit and that term-limited Council Members may not run again.

Rationale for proposing this ballot item rests on the supposed lack of candidates wanting to run for the office and the need to retain qualified and experienced (meaning term-limited former Mayors and Council Members) involvement in the community, by allowing them to run again after a sit-out period of a term.  The interruption in their consecutive term of office would lessen their overwhelming electoral advantage as an incumbent, and sever perceived ties with those with interests with the City.  (Note:  Council passed this 4:1 with Council Member Lane voting NO)

However passage of this question 3, along with Referendum Question No 2 (expanding term-limits to 3 consecutive terms), would allow Council to serve indefinitely, with a 3-year sit-out between  limited-terms.  So serve 9 years, take a break, serve another 9 ad infinitum.

(Update – with Question 2 ruled invalid – a Yes would allow  a council member to serve 6 years, take a break, serve another 6 ad infinitum).

Sound like Term Limits to you?

Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 4

Vote NO on Question 4

First some definition of terms:

• Majority Wins – in an election, the candidate receiving at least 50% of the votes plus 1 is the winner.  In a multiple candidate race this clearly demonstrates that the winning candidate represents the majority of the voters.  Rarely (in our City’s history), no one candidate receives the majority, and thus a run-off election is required.
• Plurality Wins – in an election, the candidate winning the most votes is the winner.  In a two-person race, the winner will have received the majority of the votes.  In a multiple candidate race, the candidate with the most votes will be the winner, even if that candidate actually has a minority of the total votes cast.  There would be no run-off election.

Rationale used by the Charter Review Committee and the Council:

• The cost of having a run-off election was cited by both the City Clerk Snider and the City Attorney Lohman
• Clerk Snider stated that in the last 15 years, never has the winner of the plurality vote not also won the run-off
• The City already has a very low turn-out for Municipal (March) elections and the run-off two weeks later has yet a smaller percentage of voters.

Why  Maintain Majority?

• The City’s most recent election gives an example of the case where the winner of the run-off would have won in either Majority Wins or Plurality Wins.  Mrs. Litt had 38% of the vote, Mr. Russo had 34%, Mr. Wicker had 20% and Mr. Easton had 9% of the 6331 voters.  Thus 62%, the majority, voted for someone other than Mrs. Litt.  In the run-off, Litt won over Russo with 58% of the vote – a clear majority of the 5235 voters.  With a different set of candidates or had the Mr. Russo been able to gather the votes of the other candidates, the outcome could have been different.  With plurality wins, one could question that Mrs. Litt had not earned the confidence of the majority of the voters who cared enough to vote.  With the run-off, Litt can totally claim to have earned her seat.
• Run-offs happen rarely (2 in 2004 and 1 in 2017), and while the statistics that Clerk Snider states are true for the last 15 years, in the almost 60 year history of the City there has been at least one case where the winner of the plurality lost the run-off.
• At all levels of government, it is a not uncommon technique to fill a candidate slate with ‘faux’ candidates (friends of an incumbent as an example), who divide the vote and make it easier for the incumbent or candidate with more name recognition to eek out a win by popular vote.  The run-off eliminates those candidates and lets the ‘legitimate’ candidates ‘duke it out’ in the run-off.
• Some municipalities that have Plurality Wins require the winner to have at least 35% of the vote.  Referendum Question 4 does not have such a limit – thus a candidate with 4 or 5 opponents could clearly have a very small percentage of the total vote.
• In the 2012 Charter Review, the then sitting council was presented with the same recommendation by the City Attorney, and wisely removed it from the proposed referendum.  (Note:  Council vote was 4:1 with Council Member Lane voting NO)
• Cost of elections should not be the primary reason for eliminating elections – why have elections at all?  The March 13, 2018 election will only have the four referendum questions on it with no other candidates.  The City will be spending the cost of at least two run-offs on having this election.  

There is no compelling reason to change from Majority Wins to Plurality Wins

Whiffs of autocracy and intimidation a new trend for this council?

I have been attending Palm Beach Gardens City Council meetings for over 5 years – missing only a few and catching up by viewing those online. Over the last few months – which aligns with the new council and new mayor, the atmosphere within the chambers has become frosty – not just in temperature. The council is beginning to appear fearful of the residents, and have disdain for those not in alignment with their views.

Observations:

• Over the last several meetings the City Hall has had an increasingly visible police presence. There have always been a few police around the perimeter of the chambers. Now there are sometimes more police than there are non-staff members of the public. In fact, when I recently brought a friend to one of the meetings, she remarked at how intimidating the police presence was.
• Public comment practice (whether process or not) has always seemed to allow the submission of cards prior to the start of an agenda item not prior to the start of the meeting. Previous mayors would ask, especially on controversial topics, if there was anyone else who wished to speak – whether or not a card had been submitted. At the most recent meeting, comment cards were physically removed from the table near the entry to the Chambers, and an individual who tried to bring a comment card to the Clerk was physically barred from doing so. Yet the process described by the City Clerk to a reporter says “We want to ensure that every member of the public that wishes to speak has the opportunity to do so.”

Council should consider:  Do you think this is the proper process? To force people who wish to address a topic at the end of a meeting to arrive prior to the meeting and sit through  boring (to them) and un-related items just for the privilege of addressing the council for 3 minutes ? Is this a process which should be discussed and reconsidered?

• Council members have received emails that they view as negative or threatening – because the email seem to imply the pubic is watching them – in the most recent case, pertaining to term limits. Yet one on the Council, Mr. Woods, has a process serving business and it appears he plans to use the same approach on the residents.  He states (at minute 8:19 at this video archive link )  “Now I’m in protective mode. On every single email I get that’s a negative email I will be knocking on your door”.  No matter what citizens tell him in response to his un-requested visit (which he implies are all positive) this is nothing less than intimidation and an action which will only further result in suppression of  citizen participation and voters.
• On several occasions in the last few months – staff has offered, on first reading of an item, to give a presentation. The mayor has responded with something like “Oh it’s not necessary. I already saw your presentation and it was fine”.  Perhaps those who took the time to come to the meeting may have been interested in seeing it?
•  Not unique to our Council, but more and more often, it is clear that while purportedly listening to public comment – especially when it’s something they’ve heard from the speaker before or something with which council doesn’t agree – those on the dais are doing other things – looking at a terminal or reading something. (At least council hasn’t gotten to the point of talking to each other, which we’d observed many years ago in County Commission meetings. Not a high bar to jump.)

Perception is reality. And this new reality is not a positive one . Council – you may want to watch video archives of your meetings, watch your tone to the public and reconsider your public comment process.

An Open Letter to the Palm Beach Gardens City Council

Dear Mayor Marino, Vice-Mayor Marciano, Council Member Lane*, Council Member Litt and Council Member Woods.

I like all of you. I think you love the City. I don’t think you’re doing your jobs for the money. I think you are well intentioned. Thus I am saddened by the mistake you are about to make tonight in placing the 4 questions on the March ballot – where there are no candidates and no other reason for voters to come to the polls.

• You cannot hide behind the Charter Review Committee (CRC). Most of you told me before the committee was even chosen that term limits was what the review was going to be about, and you selected your committee accordingly. You are the ones trying to alter term limits and run-again and plurality and you are the ones who will benefit from this self-serving action. Even the CRC acknowledged in their deliberations that incumbents are almost always re-elected so that they, the CRC, knew their proposal was most likely extending your terms of office.
• You selected CRC members – two of whom are lobbyists for the City; and one of whom, while a property owner, is NOT A RESIDENT OF OUR CITY OR A VOTER IN OUR CITY. The requirements wording posed to you by the City Clerk originally were modified to be guidelines – but the requirements would have disqualified those individuals from serving on the committee. Conveniently, the Resolution 49, 2017 which you passed, modified the word ‘requirements’ to ‘guidelines’ – thus making their appointment technically ‘legal’.
• None of the City charters in the County that I have looked at look anything remotely like the content-free ‘modernized’ Charter that the City Attorney has proposed.
• The Charter Review Committee, while reviewing each item, essentially took each of the 2012 City Attorney charter suggestions and accepted them.
• The wording of most of the ballot questions are entirely misleading at best, and possibly – false.
• You are removing the requirement for Charter Reviews
• You are removing the requirement for City Manager residence.
• You are removing the requirement for City Manager Reviews
• You are removing the merit system which was a fairly recent addition to the Charter added to protect employees, not harm them.
• You are throwing out votes.
• You are using the opposition by the Supervisor of Elections on placing any questions on the ballot in November as a convenient excuse – because you know the turnout will be minuscule in March and not representative of the 16000+ who voted for term limits in November 2014 and those who voted against the base charter changes in November 2012.

You are leaders all right – none of the other cities that have term limits in this county have taken such a brash action as to change those terms, and none of you have even completed your first term. Is this what you each want to be known for? Is this what you want Palm Beach Gardens to be known for? Because should these changes pass, due to your actions, this WILL BE YOUR ONLY LEGACY, over-shadowing anything else you may accomplish.

Please reconsider. There is no rush to do this. If not November 2018 – then place it on the March 2019 ballot where you will have to run on your choices.

Sincerely,

Iris Scheibl

*Council Member Lane – thank you for previously stating your issues with the proposed changes.

Next Page »