Martino: Public Workshops or Private Meetings
I attended the June 6th Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting to listen to the Costco renovation plans and subsequent vote to approve or disapprove. The vote was 3 to 1 to approve with not much discussion of substance by the City Council members. Also on the agenda were several other major projects petitioned by various business and developer interests. With little Council discussion these projects were approved to move forward unanimously which if you regularly attend the once per month Council meeting you will recognize as almost always the norm.
What I found most interesting about the above projects and Council votes was the “coziness” of the banter between the Council and the developer representatives and/or lobbyists. Some of these projects were scheduled for Quasi-Judicial Hearings. Law requires the Council members to announce their individual contacts with representatives of the project and anyone else that they may converse with concerning the Quasi-Judicial Hearing subject. The rub here is the Council members do not offer any real insights into these conversations; therefore, the Public is not privy as to how these conversations impact the decision-making process and, paraphrasing the Council members, “the relationship building”.
It is important to stress that wariness about the above does not suggest anything untoward but only awkward perceptions that can and should be avoided. To alleviate this awkwardness a simple and straight forward suggestion is more scheduled meetings with the Public in the Council chambers and fewer meetings with the lobbyists in private. Scheduled public workshop meetings on developer projects would allow the Council to discuss in Public what they now are discussing in private. The Public would have more notice that a petitioned project is being considered, more opportunity to digest the petitioned project, and therefore, may be more intellectually competent to comment pro or con with the Council both prior to and at the Public Hearings of said projects. Transparency, communication, and openness, are fundamentals of good government and required by Florida’s Sunshine Law.
It is my considered opinion, regularly scheduled workshops for development projects or for any other important Public business prior to full staff review are a necessity and important to the conduct of the Public’s business. Regularly scheduled workshops are not a new concept to the Palm Beach Gardens City Council processes and work product. It was a City Council process followed for over 40 years. When and why scheduled workshops were discontinued is mystifying. During most of those years, two workshops and two regular meetings were held each month on Thursday evenings. From my perspective, workshop meetings afford everyone and every entity involved in the Public’s business to become better educated and informed. The collective rather than individual thought and decision-making processes of the City Council members are better understood by themselves, by the petitioners, by the Administration, and most important by the Public. The Council’s policy directives concerning the petition are understood by the Administration before the petition is scrutinized and reviewed for compliance and other issues which in my view is not the current modus operandi.
With the imposition of term limits it was hoped new and different faces on the City Council would bring innovation and change to the City Council’s protocol. The faces have changed but by and large the conduct of City business has not. It is my opinion that the inherited process flaws are still embedded. I have suggested and discussed the need for scheduled workshops before but with no success. The lack of scheduled workshop meetings, agenda preparation, agenda reviews in private by Council members, Council and Administration intersection, among other concerns are subjects worth addressing and discussing, perhaps, in a scheduled workshop. It is my conviction that in some instances the City Council’s perspective on the processes necessary to conduct the City’s business are not always consistent with the best interests of residents.
Martino: Hear the Messages
For the voters and City Council of Palm Beach Gardens the August 28th election has come and gone. Again in a loud and certain voice the voters sent two succinct messages to the City Council and its Administration. Approximately, 70% of the participating voters in the August 28th election affirmatively communicated…
DO NOT MESS WITH OUR TERM LIMITS
And
DO NOT MESS WITH THE CITY MANAGER RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
This City Council has been tone deaf when listening to the majority of the voters as it relates to these two issues. However, their hearing seems to be well tuned to the frequency of the developers and special interests whose money and attitudes are not in tune with the desires of the voters. The deceptive, political, and somewhat conspiratorial campaign that was waged against the above messages by the City Council bears witness to their deafness. To make matters worse the City Council used public tax money to support and pay for their crusade against existing term limits and City Manager residency requirements. Augmenting the City’s position in opposition to the messages above, a Political Action Committee, PAC, miraculously surfaced with an employee of the City’s public relations firm as its Treasurer, and lots of developer and special interest money underwriting it.
The reality of and results of the election apparently did nothing to improve the deafness of Mayor Marino. A City Council appointed Mayor, Marino’s comments in response to the results of the August 28th election suggest no improvement can be expected to her and the Council’s hearing. In a Palm Beach Post article she lamented “It looks like every five to six years, we’ll have a brand new council, so we’ll have a limited amount of institutional knowledge.” Marino blamed the term limit election results on a reaction to national politics. Apparently, Marino did not hear well the sounds of the election results concerning the City Manager residency either. She again opposed the voters’ desires as after some simplistic commentary she said, “That’s why it should be a contract item and not a charter item.”
My suggestion to the City Council is to listen and HEAR THE MESSAGES of the voters. Leave term limits alone, leave the City Manager residency as is, and quit messing with the City Charter. Enough is enough
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.
Martino: City Legal Failures
In three recent Palm Beach Post newspaper editions the City of Palm Beach Gardens was in the headlines again. But the news and the articles did nothing to enhance the reputation of the City. All of the articles highlighted the seeming ineptness of the present City Council and its immediate predecessor Council to establish clear, cogent, and competent decision making in the legal areas of their responsibilities. These missteps have stumbled the City into costly lawsuits that competency could have avoided.
The City Council should be concerned with these legal failures. As a resident I am. And yes, in my opinion, these lawsuits are failures because they could have and should have been avoided. Failure should not be an option. Let’s briefly discuss the three lawsuits featured in the Post…
- Sears wants Gardens to pay $2.1 million for legal fees: In a case that involved a lease between The Gardens Mall and Sears that had no public implications the City Council passed an ill-advised City Resolution that resolved a position in favor of the Mall’s argument. Due to this Resolution the City was ultimately inserted into the litigation. On appeal Sears was victorious. The 4th District Court of Appeals ruled the City Council’s Resolution was unconstitutional because it impaired Sears’ contract rights while also ruling Sears was owed attorneys’ fees.
- My opinion: The City should not have consented to a Resolution that inserted its’ full faith into a private business contract dispute. $2.1 million for legal fees or any portion thereof is a lot of taxpayer money. The Council’s legal advice was and is suspect. If no Resolution is passed than there is no litigation against the City.
- Gardens to fix rejected questions: As a result of a private citizen’s lawsuit in February a County Circuit Court ruled that the City’s proposed language for City Charter revisions on the March ballot were misleading, therefore, illegal and any votes for them are negated.
- My opinion: The City Council simply did not discuss the legal advice being suggested in a logical and coherent process. Public workshop meetings should have been scheduled to flush out the propriety, purpose, and legalities of the Charter revisions. In a workshop format the Council members could have thoroughly discussed and vetted the associated language prior to moving to ordinance format and the required ballot wording. Perhaps, then a private citizen would not have had to sue the City.
- Rustic Lakes wants out of Gardens: Rural community, just annexed, says it was forced to join: It is rather difficult for a City to get sued over a balloted annexation. There is a state statute that offers a clear roadmap. The areas to be annexed must vote in the affirmative, as was the result in this past March election. Rustic Lakes claims dubious means were used by the City to “orchestrate a reprehensible method” of including them on a ballot question with two neighboring communities.
- My opinion: It is apparent that some Rustic Lakes residents were opposed to being annexed, thus the lawsuit. If annexing the two larger communities was possible without creating a non- contiguous situation, a reluctant Rustic Lakes community could have been removed from the annexation ballot question. Again more legal counsel and guidance together with more probing discussion at a workshop meeting among the Council members, perhaps, would have been the extra ounce of prevention necessary to avert this problem.
The above is only the latest in a list of failed legal decisions by Gardens City Councils’ past and present. The decision in 2013 and 2014 to keep the “baseball stadium fiasco” a secret from the residents based on the interpretation, wrongly in my opinion, of a State Statute by the City Attorney, a Statute whose intent the City Council had violated almost from the get-go, is on that list as well. Another list maker is the 2016 election for the Group 4 seat. The City Council on the advice of the City Attorney and City Clerk allowed the 4-term incumbent to be placed on the ballot as a candidate even though the Term Limit language in the Charter determined him to be ineligible. The election was legally challenged and the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled the incumbent to be disqualified and declared the challenger the winner.
So who is responsible for these legal missteps and failures? From my perspective, it’s the City Council. They were elected to be the decision makers and, therefore, the responsibility is theirs’. One could argue and rightly so, that the legal advice has been less than proficient in the above referenced decisions. However, it is up to the City Council to recognize and contend with what are defects in counsel and guidance.
My suggestions to the City Council are simple. Do your homework. Do not accept the advice and /or recommendations of the Administration as if it were the Holy Grail. Ask questions and more questions. Hold regular advertised workshop meetings so discussion among all Council members is shared with each other and the public; the exchange of thoughts and ideas may help to ferret out unforeseen defects in the Administration’s advice and recommendations. Be aware of bureaucracy creep. Jealously guard your rights to be the leader, the policy maker, and the decider, not the follower and the disciple.
Martino: City… Intimidation, Humiliation, or Bullying!
Have you ever heard of a Kangaroo Court? A Kangaroo Court can be defined as an unofficial or mock court set up spontaneously for the purpose of delivering a judgment arrived at in advance; usually a verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. The term may also apply to a military court, a court held by a legitimate judicial authority, or a court held by political decree. Usually, these courts intentionally disregard legal or ethical obligations and are characterized by dishonesty and/or incompetence. The defendants in such courts are often denied access to legal representation and in some cases, proper defense.
On April 5th, at their only monthly scheduled meeting with the Public, the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens convened their unique version of a Kangaroo Court under the guise of a political decree. That’s my opinion. It might be yours, also, if you view the video of said meeting, and more particularly, agenda Item IX, the City Manager Report, which is devoid of an announced topic.
In February the City Council issued a political decree to the City Manager for a report concerning two particular residents who have continuously raised various issues and complaints at Council meetings and with the City Administration. The report was to explain the persistent complaints that have continued over time about the various issues that the two residents deemed injurious and the City’s positions and responses. It is my understanding that prior to the political decree and ultimate report, penalties and punitive measures, both lawful and otherwise, had already been meted out to the two residents in question as retribution for their indiscretions. One has had all phone calls and emails made to the City blocked and had been advised that all further contact with the City should be conducted in person or in writing. The second resident had been assessed fines totaling $150,000 which was reduced to $40,000 through mediation, and paid.
However, back to the City Manager’s “report”, which was not a “report” at all, but a 38 minute Kangaroo Court. It was a trial in absentia of the two referenced City residents which amounted to a public humiliation of them in addition to the penalties and punitive measures described above. The trial was conducted by the City Manager as Chief Prosecutor, with the City Attorney, the Assistant City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the Deputy Assistant City Manager as his Assistant Prosecutors. The City Council was presiding in a manner reminiscent of a sphinx. Throughout the intimidation of this trial their silence was pervasive.
The “report”, from my perspective, could have and should have been no more than a 5 minute verbal summation by the City Manager and a written account of further details, if necessary. Instead, the Public was subjected to a Kangaroo Court. It was a costly, well rehearsed, verbal and pictorial “trial” complete with charts and anecdotes, that “tarred and feathered” the residents in question without them afforded an opportunity to refute. The “innocence or guilt” of the residents in question is not mine to assess. However, their public humiliation was a senseless exhibition of bullying by an Administration that appeared to be frenzied and out of control.
There simply is no justification for this 38 minute Kangaroo Court, trial, “report”, or whatever the characterization may be, of the two referenced City residents, or any other residents for that matter. There is and are no redeeming qualities to be found in attacking residents, publicly, in this manner regardless of the circumstances, particularly, when penalties have already been assessed. This “report” should not have been scheduled for any City Council meeting agenda as presented. From my perspective, the Mayor and City Council bear the brunt of responsibility and their offices have been demeaned.
When elected officials raise their right hand to swear the oath of office the words, humiliation, intimidation, or bullying, are nowhere to be found.
Martino: Ironwood Park Kudos
In case you have not heard the City of Palm Beach Gardens has a new neighborhood park. The location is the City-owned vacant lot on the corner of Holly Drive and Ironwood Road in Plat 1. It is fittingly named Ironwood Park. The City budgeted $150,000 as a commitment to the park’s success and has recently added updated safety features, irrigation, and enhanced landscaping. It has become an instant neighborhood sensation, as well as, a property value asset and enhancer.
Ironwood Park is well designed and tastefully landscaped. The park has a plethora of activity centers geared for toddlers and youngsters up to 12 years of age with plenty of parent park benches. Included, is a Zip Line apparatus with “special needs” provisions for the physically challenged and is a first for the City’s park facilities inventory. Parking has been provided with a pathway leading to the park entry keeping the little ones safely away from the road.
The City has made a concerted effort to improve the maintenance and appearance of properties in the corridor of Holly Drive between Ironwood Road and Lighthouse Drive on the east side. Much has been done and is appreciated but much more is expected and necessary.
The impetus for the new park and the neighborhood improvements can be attributed in a large measure, in my opinion, to two individuals, Steven Martino and Carl Woods. Steven is my son and Carl is a City Councilman. Also, the City Administration particularly, the Public Works and Recreation Departments, deserve high praise for a job well done.
Carl Woods was seated as a new Palm Beach Gardens Council member in 2016. Having been apprised of the problems of the older neighborhoods while campaigning door to door, Carl promised he would work to improve what he could. He has kept to his word and has made a difference. He pushed and prodded the City Council and Administration with persistence and patience to begin the alleviation of the problem areas along Holly Drive and to make Ironwood Park a reality. Carl should be applauded for the improvement in the appearance of the Holly Drive east corridor and for making Ironwood Park a reality.
Martino: Charter questions… information is missing
I have authored several Martino Minute opinion articles concerning the City of Palm Beach Gardens City Charter Amendments referendum scheduled for election on March 13, 2018. The City Council is pitching four Charter amendment questions on which they are asking Gardens registered voters to cast a “Yes” or “No” vote. After listening carefully to the City Council’s reasons for and discussion of these four questions, and after gathering my own information to examine these questions, I am voting “No” on each question.
It is incumbent upon each of us residents that we understand what the City Charter is. It is the City’s constitution. I would confidently say that it belongs to the residents, not an appointed committee, not the City Council, not the City Manager, and not the City Attorney. In my opinion, it’s will and words ensure that the governing of the City will be by and for the residents. It spells out how the City government should function for the good of the residents. The Charter contains a fair amount of specificity, as it should. The amending process must be specific to subject and residents must be informed in exacting terms and nothing less. That’s the law talking, not me.
Let us exam the PBG Referendum Questions #1 & #2 for specificity and information…
From my perspective this question is as ambiguous and non-specific as a question can be. What are the recommendations of the CRC? Eliminate what internal inconsistencies? Remove what conflicts with State Law and Council Manager form of government? How is the Charter to be reorganized? Where is Ordinance 26 2017 Exhibit “A”? Also, it does not contain information so the voter can cast an educated ballot. For instance, it does not inform the voter that a “Yes” vote removes the requirement for a Charter review, changes how a City Council vacancy is filled, deletes the requirement for the City Manager to live in the City, erases the requirement for the City Manager Annual Performance Review, and crosses out the Employee Merit System, as just a few examples of what the voter is not informed of.
I would offer that Question 2 lacks the information necessary for the voter to make an informed vote. It is deceptive in its wording because it suggests that the voter is casting a ballot to amend the Charter to institute term limits for three full consecutive terms. It fails to inform the voter that term limits already are in place for maximum of two consecutive three year terms. A “Yes” vote for Question #2 and a “Yes” vote for Question #3 which allows for a 3-year sit-out and return could allow a Council member to conceivably serve indefinitely.
Another issue that has merit without a satisfactory answer from the City Council is, “Why March 13, 2018?” There is no City Council member election, as this is an off year. Turn out will be minimal. It seems less than considerate of the 20,000 voters who participated in the November 2014 election that considered the need for term limits, and more particularly, the 16,000 that voted to approve of them. The August 2018 primary election or the November 2018 general election is a more appropriate choice but the City Council announced publicly that November was not available per the Supervisor of Elections office. On February 13, 2018 in the courtroom of a Circuit Court Judge the Lawyers for the Supervisor of Elections said there is no legal prohibition to those dates as long as the legalities are met. Hmmm.
Referendum elections offer choices for the registered voter. The voter should be adequately provided with accurate, true and specific information in order to make an informed choice. It is my considered opinion that the Council could have done more to educate themselves and us. Acknowledging the word and space limitations of the ballot, it is still my contention that more exacting ballot questions could have and should have been approved and offered.
The choice of “No” on these four Charter Amendment questions is obvious.
Martino: “Fixes”…no thank you!
On March 13th the Palm Beach Gardens registered voters are being asked by its City Council to answer yes or no to 4 ballot questions that significantly change the City Charter and dramatically alter the recently passed City Council Term Limit Law. From my perspective, these changes do not upgrade, enhance, or provide forward momentum for the residents and their City Charter or government. In my opinion, the 4 ballot questions deserve a “NO”.
The City Council and others that support these changes offer nothing of consequence or necessity in the way of rational reasoning. Their basis of reasoning for these substantive Charter changes is…
- Recommendations of Charter Review Committee
Rebuttal: This committee was appointed by the City Council. Two of the members were City lobbyists and one of them does not live in the City. The committee was not balanced geographically and no appointment was made from any of the older original Plats of the City. In a hasty fashion, it held only four meetings causing the hired consultant to remark about the brevity of the process. Finally, recommendations are only that and need not be accepted, adopted, or approved, as has happened in the past.
- Learning curve for new Council members is steep
Rebuttal: My answer is simple; the intricacies of the office one seeks should be learned before standing for that office. If you cannot be productive from the first meeting don’t run for the job. In various campaign forums and meetings, these City Council members asserted their experience and fitness for the job. In their campaign literature that is mailed to voters the council members ballyhoo loud and clear about their readiness to perform. I guess we should not have believed their exclamations.
- 6 years is not enough time to do the job
Rebuttal: Above the assertion is the learning curve to do the job is steep. If two terms of three years, or 6 years, is not enough to do the job. Well, are 9 or 12, or 15 or 28 years enough? How much time is enough to be competent in a part-time job that has it work product implemented by a well-paid, well tenured, Administration and Staff.
- Institutional memory
Rebuttal: The meshing of the two words, institutional memory, sounds important. Is it politically correct to have it? It’s almost scary to think you may not have it. So I looked it up. Institutional memory is a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences and knowledge held by a group of people. Institutional memory has been defined as stored knowledge within an organization. There are different ideas about how institutional memory is transferred, whether it is between people or through written sources. It is my opinion, in the case of a Council-Manager form of local government whose elected officials are part-time and elected on a staggered basis, as Palm Beach Gardens does, the main source of memory comes from input by people to be recognized in and through formal hearings, meetings, and then by documentation into public records, and not by any particular individual, elected or otherwise. Institutional memory than, as it applies to a Council-Manager government, is not vested in any one City Council member, but its City Council as a group, augmented by transparent public documented records, and an Administration with Staff that has some degree of tenure and longevity.
- The City Charter is bush league and broken
Rebuttal: That’s right; according to our City Attorney’s comment at the October 5, 2017 City Council meeting we have a “Bush League” City Charter. The charter is the constitution for our City. By extrapolation then, is the City Attorney with his “Bush League” utterance inferring that Palm Beach Gardens is a second tier, minor league, City? Probably not is my hope, but his other comments also smacked of insolence for the City Charter. Our City Charter has evolved, been amended, and guided our City over time since 1959, long before our current City Attorney was around to completely understand its history to present day. It has stood the test of time. It has been tested in the Courts and upheld in almost every instance. Our City Charter is not broken. It does not need the 4 “fixes” the City Council is trying to foist on the residents.
This City Council was elected under the language and laws of the current City Charter which includes the Term Limits, election laws, legal vote counting, and other regulations which they now claim, after the fact, need “fixing”, and right now. Where was the urgency during their campaigning? Why didn’t they offer these “fixes” as platform issues during their campaigns? The Term Limits that they want to change allowed them to be elected. The above reasoning for the Charter “fixes” they say are necessary are feeble at best and almost approach the absurd. In my opinion, this City Council, that has not yet completed one 3-year term in office, has been a bit self-serving and less than an “honest broker” in this “fixing” process.
The information I have learned says each of the 4 referendum questions should be answered with a “NO”.
Martino: Say NO to the ‘Kool-Aid’
In part due to the overwhelming passage in 2014 of Term Limits the City of Palm Beach Gardens elected five new City Council members. Council members’ faces have changed and the dais nameplates have changed. But so far not much else has changed. The “newbies” promises of change have not materialized. The expectations of term limits have not kick-started the change in governmental style and culture as some expected. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
Ten months into having five new Council voices the “newbies” sound and act like the “oldies”. A sense of arrogance still permeates the singular monthly scheduled Council meeting. The administration is still “stroking and cajoling” and the “newbies’ seem to like the “Kool Aid” being served. The pledge of transparency is still wanting. The promise to hold regularly scheduled workshop meetings on agenda items remains unfulfilled. The 2018 budget expenditures did not decrease as alleged during the Council campaign but actually increased by approximately 7.4%. Even though 16,000 Gardens registered voters approved the new 2014 Term Limit Law, the “newbies” voted to shatter term limits as mandated, as well as, disenfranchising the registered voters from the democratic election process in Palm Beach Gardens under the pretext and ruse of modernizing the City Charter.
Ten meetings and what innovative and fresh initiatives have the “newbies” offered? What of substance to improve the everyday lives of Gardens residents have they accomplished or even discussed? Unfortunately, from my perspective, there is not much of consequence that I can relate too. For what it’s worth, I would suggest that the Council’s agenda would better serve the residents if it attacked some of the real and everyday neighborhood problems facing a sixty year old City. Permit me to list just a few in no particular order…
- neighborhood cut-through traffic on streets, such as, Holly Drive, MacArthur Blvd., and Lighthouse Drive
- Town Hall-Plat 6 Foot Bridge
- upgrading and code enforcement in City areas that contain multi -family Duplex units as found on the east side of Holly Drive between Ironwood and Lighthouse Drive in Plat 1
- median landscaping improvements along Alternate A1A from PBG southern boundary to Hood Road
- influx of sober homes in older neighborhoods
- discussion of management of Brightline train expected problems and status of upgrading of PBG crossings
- discussion assessing needs of older original Plats and neighborhoods of the City
So am I being unfair, or overly negative, opining as I do. I think not. I am just reflecting on the obvious. Yes, Palm Beach Gardens is a great place to live and 94% of residents in a recent survey say so. Yet there are issues and problems that need solutions. I have lived in the Gardens for 53 years and it has always been that way no matter who the Council members are.
My advice to the current City Council members is to resist the “stroking and cajoling” and to say no to the “Kool Aid”. Oppose self-serving tendencies and the temptations of the special interests. Reclaim the prerogative of the City Council to create “policy and direction” for the Administration to implement. Generate policy for innovative and fresh initiatives that serve the needs and pleasures of the residents who gave you their trust.