August 28 Ballot has 3 PB Gardens Referendum Questions

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SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE PROVISIONS THAT ARE OUTDATED, UNNECESSARY OR CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW INCLUDING MUNICIPALITY, CITY CLERK, AND CITY TREASURER SPECIFIC POWERS/DUTIES; OATH OF OFFICE; MERIT SYSTEM; PROCEDURE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).

 

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.

Mayor Urges Professional vs Emotional Approach to “Gun Control” Resolution

Much of the May 3, 2018 City Council Meeting was not controversial or included much discussion.

State Senator Bobby Powell, as he did last year, gave a very thorough and engaging power-point presentation summarizing the last legislative session. Marcum LLP presented the Fiscal Year 2017 audit report with glowing results. City Manager Ferris presented an award to Deputy City Manager Stephen Stepp (in his former capacity of Police Chief), Laura Schuppert – Tennis Director gave an update on the new Tennis Clubhouse and Crystal Gibson of Code Enforcement described a most recent humanitarian effort by staff coordinating with Christ Fellowship.

Bookending the remainder of the meeting was the subject of “Gun Control”; Council Member Litt later in the meeting described the current ‘proper’ nomenclature to be “Gun Reform Legislation” or “Commonsense Gun Legislation”. During Comments From the Public, Joan Hoffman of Ballenisles gave a heart-felt statement about her former house-keeper Kassandra Morales who was killed recently in a West Palm Beach bar & grill. She spoke representing a few others that were in the room for Mom’s Demand Action. Her said that her personal focus was not necessarily on the guns but the people behind them. Speaking after her was Mary Castronovo, also a Gardens’ resident describing Mom’s Demand Action as the counter-weight of the “powerful gun control lobby”. The final item on the Council’s agenda for the evening was Resolution 26, 2018 – Firearms Control.

This was the first opportunity for the council members to express their positions on the Resolution they asked staff to draft. Mayor Marino, respectful of the passion and emotion on the subject, urged that the council not vote on the resolution that evening and that the council address the resolution from a professional approach rather than an emotional approach. All agreed. City Manager Ferris suggested that each member submit their comments in writing and that those would be incorporated and reflected at the June 7 City Council Meeting.

Public Comment also included:

• Steve Mathison representing the PGA Corridor and congratulating the City for the clean audit
• Paula Magnuson – thanking staff for progress on Gardens East Drive and handing a package to Council requesting that they review her response to what was said about her last month
• Carol Easton and Kevin Easton – expressing their concern that their properties were being targeted with code violations and describing the difficulty of Sunset neighborhood egress with new plans for expanded lanes on Northlake Blvd
• Sandy and Marty Groner of Gardens of Thornbury, asking for assistance on a code enforcement issue with the parking of a non-commercial bus-like vehicle in their neighborhood.

Consent Agenda and Public Hearings and Resolutions:

• Consent passed 5:0
• Resolution 19, 2018 – Frenchman’s Reserve clubhouse flagpole passed 5:0
  Ordinance 6, 2018 – amending Chapter 26, Elections passed 5:0 on first reading; Kevin Easton requested that perhaps petitions could be filed on-line.
  Ordinance 7, 2018 – Referendum Question 1 – Term Limits – passed on final reading 4:1. Council Member Lane described the huge advantage incumbents have and the combination of this question with the recently passed ‘run again’ provision essentially obviates term limits. He voted NO. Vice Mayor Woods once again quoted members of the Term Limits Committee saying that run again was never intended. Mayor Marino gave a lengthy statement essentially against Term Limits and for the need for longer number of years in office.
• Ordinances 8, 2018 (Referendum Queston 2 – Repeal/Replace Charter) and Ordinance 9, 2018 – (Referendum Question 3 – City Manager Residence) both passed 5:0 on final reading with minimal discussion as did Ordinance 10, 2018, first reading (Voluntary Annexation for Richard Road Seacoast Utility Authority Parcel)
• Resolution 24 2018 – in support of the Steeplechase Community in its effort to mitigate impacts of planned Beeline Highway and Northlake expansion projects was passed 5:0 after Tom Berita thanked the Council for the Resolution and Council Member Lane summarized his efforts on the subdivision’s behalf

Note: Also on June 7 at 6pm is a City Council Workshop with Florida Department of Transportation on Beeline Highway

Next City Council Mtg on Thursday, May 3rd at 7PM

• State Senator Bobby Powell – Legislative Update
• Fiscal Year 2017 Audit Report by Marcum LLP

• Resolution 22, 2018 – Approving plat for Nuvo Business Center 
• Resolution 23, 2018 – Project Knight – In February Council Meeting Resolution 7, 2018 appproved $70K in economic incentives.  This would provide another $140K ($1400/job for 100 jobs) to the company.
• Resolution 25, 2018 – Request that the SOE conduct the City’s Special Election in August.  Costs are listed as TBD.
• Purchase Award – Piggyback/Access contract for Real Estate Brokerage Services for sale of property at 9290 Park Lane listed to be above $65K
• Purchase Award – Openly competed for Replacement of Irrigation Pump Stations –  $136K
• Purchase Award – Openly competed for School Crossing Guard Services for 5 years – $1.5 Million

City Manager Report  – no details listed

• Resolution 19, 2018 – Request from Frenchman’s Reserve Country Club for approval for installation of 50′ Flag Pole at the Country Club
• Ordinance 6, 2018 –  first reading – Repeal and replace of Chapter 26 (Elections) in the City’s Code of Ordinances – rationale given is SOE request to make qualification dates earlier – however there are other significant changes throughout the document!
• 2nd Reading and Adoption of Ordinances 7-9, 2018  – Referendum Questions 1,2 and 3 which will appear on the August 28, 2018 Primary Election – pertaining to Term Limits, Repeal/Replace of the Charter, City Manager Residence.
• Ordinance 10,2018 – Voluntary Annexation 14+ Acre Seacoast Utility Authority Parcel 
• Resolution 24, 2018 – Supporting the Steeplechase community for the installation of a noise wall for the planned future State Road 710 (Beeline Highway)/ Northlake Boulevard roadway expansion project

Items for Council Action/Discussion:   

• Resolution 26, 2018 – Firearm Control….Calling on the State of Florida and the Federal Government to reduce gun violence in America and help prevent future occurrences by enacting common sense gun control legislation, enhancing mental health programs, and increasing school security measures.

Check the agenda to see if any additional items have been added before the meeting here.

First Reading Completed on Three Charter Questions

The Council had a relatively brief and lightly attended Special Meeting on Thursday April 19 to review the proposed language for the August 28th ballot.  City Clerk Snider read all of the required ordinance language for Ordinances 7-9, displayed the ballot language and then the Council proceeded to discuss the 3 questions individually.

Ordinance 7, 2018 passed 4:1 with Council Member Lane objecting.   He restated his position that 2 4-year terms would be better.  Council Member Marciano appreciated the position however 3 3-year terms is what was going on the ballot.  The question reads:

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?

Ordinance 8, 2018 – the repeal and replace of the base charter, passed 5:0.  Council Member Lane asked for a few changes in the wording of the Ordinance to ensure that the items already passed in the March 13, 2018 election were preserved.  City Attorney Lohman agreed to make the changes.  The language is considerably different than that voided in March (formerly Question 1) and specifies a list of modifications present in the new charter.  Exhibit A also clearly shows what former wording, new wording, removed and new reorganization of the sections will be so that the voter can understand the modifications.  Left in the charter are the requirement for charter reviews, as well as the requirement to annually review the City Manager.   Scroll down to page 9 of this link to the beginning of exhibit A.  The question reads:

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 COUNCILMANAGER
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?

Ordinance 9, 2018 – City Manager Residence also passed 5:0 after some discussion.  Resident David Parks made public comment praising the Council and City Attorney Lohman for getting it right, thanking City Manager Ferris for a well run city, thanking City Clerk Snider for accomodating his numerous records requests, and thanking City Council Member Litt for assisting on 5 year charter reviews staying in the Charter.  The question reads:

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?

All 3 ordinances will be on the agenda for 2nd reading and final vote on the May 3rd City Council Meeting.

 

Updated – City Council Special Mtg on April 19 at 6PM to Discuss Charter Questions

Updated 4/18 – City posted agenda and ordinances

• Ordinance 7, 2018 – Changing term limits from 2 3-year terms to 3 3-year terms
• Ordinance 8, 2018 – Repeal and Replace of the Charter with Exhibit A – the ‘New’ Charter
• Ordinance 9, 2018 – Removing the Residency Requirement for City Manager and making it a contract item as determined by Council

Here are the proposed ballot questions:

Check for an agenda here to see the details of the meeting.  I will post more information on the PBGWatch website and facebook page as it becomes available.

Please read The Face of the City and Imperious City Staff Publicly Bullies Two Gardens’ Residents covering the April 5th City Council Meeting.  Also checkout the latest Martino Minute entitled City… Intimidation, Humiliation, or Bullying!

We get the government we deserve – and it’s up to us to watch what they do.  Hope you can make it. If you can’t make the meeting try and watch live-streaming or on-demand.

The Face of the City

Council members demonstrated different sensitivities at the beginning of April’s City Council meeting. Mayor Marino wanted to alter the agenda to bring forward Presentations.  Council Member Lane requested that the Reorganization be brought forward since he had to leave in observation of Passover.  Council Member Marciano was in support of Lane’s request.  Council Member Woods was quick to reply that he felt the Presentations should be remain as Marino suggested – which would have explicitly disenfranchized Lane from the Reorganization vote.   Council Member Litt was concerned about how long the reorganization might take. All were deferring to the Mayor. Before she could decide, State Representative Roth, who was part of the presentation agenda, piped in and broke up the hesitation by saying that he had no problem waiting and the issue was resolved to allow the Reorganization to occur first.

Marciano nominated Mayor Marino as Mayor, Litt seconded it – both citing stability for the City. Woods spoke in support of the choice describing Ms. Marino as the ‘Face of the City’ over the last year. The vote was unanimous, and Council Member Marino was ‘re-elected’ as Mayor.  Lane nominated Marciano for Vice Mayor; Marino countered with Woods. The issue was resolved when Council Member Marciano withdrew his name from consideration and Carl Woods was ‘elected’ Vice-Mayor.

Both State Representative Rick Roth and Mat Forrest gave summaries of the legislative session, and City Manager Ferris, along with Forrest and Roth praised Elicia Sanders, Assistant to the City Manager for her involvement in the process. Renee Gold, a Manager at Publix on Northlake, and Kamilla Soares, Paramedic saved the life of a woman who had passed out in the Publix with CPR. For their quick response and action, the two were awarded the City’s Citizen Lifesaving Award. Also recommended was the PulsePoint medical app that monitors and alerts to emergencies. Residents were encouraged to learn hands-free CPR; classes are offered at Fire/Rescue on the third Thursday of every month. See the Palm Beach Posts coverage of the presentation.

The March 13 Elections results were declared and approved 4:0.

Comments From the Public included:

• Tom DeRita, representing Steeplechase, spoke about the community’s concerns regarding FDOT plans
• Maxine Cheesman introduced herself as candidate for Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge
• Paula Magnuson handed in letters to the Council, to the Clerk – expressing concerns about her censorship by the City (which was confirmed by the City Manager later)

City Manager Ferris began his report by saying that the previously proposed meeting with FDOT and the Steeplechase Community would be moved until June 7th at 6pm. He then, claiming reluctance, started a disturbing 35 minute presentation entitled “Council Directive From February 2018 Council Meeting”.  Residents should read “Imperious Staff Publicly Bullies Two Gardens Residents” to see how staff considers residents who are dissatisfied with their treatment.

The Consent Agenda and Ordinance 2, 2018 regarding regulations for Home Solitication Sales Passed 4:0.   Nuvo Business Center’s proposed AIPP (Art in Public Places) statue by Mark Fuller raised concerns by the Council that it would be magnet for children attempting to scale the statue  . Staff and Fuller agreed to work together to come up with a satisfactory solution with statue and landscaping modifications.

Charter Questions will once again be on the Ballot during the August 28th Primary.  Resident Jane Feinstein spoke in favor of extending the term limits from two to three consecutive terms.  Both Council Members Litt and Marciano suggested that the questions related to the base Charter be broken out into a few separate questions, and that Charter Reviews remain in the Charter. City Attorney Lohman said that he’d already decided to do the latter and planned to create questions that would be immune to those who ‘litigate for sport’. Question 2 would be re-drafted as well. While SOE Bucher at first rejected the City’s request, two other municipalities – Lake Worth and Boca Raton were also going to require ballot questions, so she relented.

The schedule is as follows:

• April 19 – City Council Special Meeting at 6PM to review and vote on First Reading of proposed referendum questions
• May 3 – City Council Meeting – 2nd Reading and Adoption of proposed referendum questions
• May 11 – Deadline to transmit the ballot language to the Supervisor of Elections for inclusion on the August 28, 2018 ballot

Items for Council Action and Discussion included a few adjustments to external boards and committees, as well as discussion of a resolution to be sent to FDOT regarding issues related to Steeplechase.  But of additional resident interest were two topics that will be on future agendas:

• Council Member Litt suggested that the City prepare a resolution, as have other municipalities in Florida, regarding regulation of assault weapons. Council Member Marciano was in support of the preliminary steps the legislature and Governor had taken, was proud of the Parkland students actions, seconded his opposition to assult weapons, and voiced his concerns about safety not just in the schools but in other public places. City Manager Ferris felt that this should be a future agenda item with full Council attendance and the opportunity for public comment and development of a clear directive.  Council agreed.
• Council Member Marciano suggested that sometime in the next few months the Council should discuss a succession/transition plan, to be worked out prior to the following April reorganization meeting.  Council Member Woods liked the idea and suggested that there be public input into who should be Mayor and Vice Mayor.

An Analysis of the Charter Vote

The March 13 municipal election asked 2 questions of the voters regarding the charter. The ballot actually had 4 questions, but the first two were thrown out by a judge for being misleading, and were not counted.

Question 3 asked if term limited council members should be allowed to run again after sitting out 3 years, and question 4 would replace our “majority wins” system with a plurality – “highest vote total wins” system.

The results by precinct are shown on the maps below – click on the precinct for the individual results.

For a March election without candidates, the turnout was substantial, with about 4700 casting their votes. There were a couple of interesing anomolies about this election though – absentee ballot totals were much higher than normal, and at the polls, the number of “Under-Votes” was an excessive 3.4%.

We have a theory about the undervotes. (It is somewhat technical, so bear with me.)

An “under-vote” is when someone votes a ballot with nothing filled in. At the precinct, the optical scanners are supposed to only flag this as an error if NOTHING on the ballot is filled in – skipping a single question will be reported as an under-vote by the SOE in the results, but the scanner doesn’t flag it and the poll workers wouldn’t know about it.

In this case though, both questions had the same number of under-votes, implying that the ballots were blank and should have been flagged. When the scanner detects this condition, it beeps and prints on the tape “UNDER-VOTE” and spits the ballot back out. The inspector working the scanner is then expected to ask the voter if they intended to submit a blank ballot. If it was a mistake, the voter takes their ballot back and marks it. If the voter intended to submit it blank, then the inspector pokes a key in a hole on the back of the scanner to “OVERRIDE” the error and accept the ballot. We asked an inspector at one of the precincts with a number of under-votes if there were any overrides – and they couldn’t recall any.

Our theory is this:

Because of the short time to react after the lawsuit, the Supervisor of Elections did not have time to program the scanners to ignore the front page of the ballot (questions 1 and 2). Therefore, since 1&2 were on page 1 and 3&4 were on page 2, it is likely many people, knowing there were only 2 questions to answer, filled in the front page (1&2) and did not notice there was a back page. The scanners should have caught this but apparently accepted 1&2 as constituting a “non-blank” ballot, and did not flag it. As a result, about 160 people (enough to change the results on question 4), were possibly disenfranchised and not afforded the option to fix the error.

This is a “hanging chad” situation regarding the “intention of the voter”, particularly since it may have affected the outcome. There is a paper trail if this is the case – the tapes for each of the optical scanners are supposed to be saved (although I don’t know for how long). The tapes would show whether any “undervotes” were flagged and if that count equaled the 161 reported under-votes in Palm Beach Gardens.

The absentee ballots numbers were also interesting as 46% of the voters cast their ballots that way. This is significant because the absentee “YES” margin was 9 points higher on question 3 and 7 points higher on question 4. Without the absentee votes, question 4 would have lost handily.

Why do I mention this? Because all the questions were misleading and until the lawsuit and the little bit of campaigning that was done, most people were naturally drawn to the the “YES” answer. The absentee ballots of course went out before either of those things occurred.

The following table shows how the absentee ballot counts and under-votes fell during the last few elections.  Note that the high under-vote count in 2016 was because the municipal candidates appeared on the same ballot as the presidential primary candidates and many people only vote for President, ignoring the rest.

 

Year	Votes Cast	At polls	Absentee	% absentee	Undervotes	%Undervotes
2018	4731	2569	2164	45.7%	167	3.5%
2017	5240	3486	1754	33.5%	0	0.0%
2016	15257	12465	2802	18.4%	1958	12.8%
2014	7167	5556	1611	22.5%	79	1.1%
2013	4217	3390	827	19.6%	1	0.0%

Question 3 – Run Again?

---

Question 3
Strong Yes	Weak Yes	Very Close	Weak No	Strong No
Click the precinct on the map for vote totals.

Precinct	Registered	Cast	Turnout	YES	NO	YES %
1186	1457	163	11	78	79	50
1188	897	63	7	34	25	58
1189	96	11	11	9	2	82
1190	3391	245	7	159	83	66
1192	1454	124	9	78	40	66
1194	2029	401	20	315	74	81
1228	446	65	15	38	26	59
1238	1680	301	18	148	146	50
1240	2506	301	12	197	97	67
1242	2559	400	16	266	113	70
1244	1567	206	13	125	76	62
1246	2397	275	11	115	153	43
1247	228	32	14	27	5	84
1248	1495	204	14	103	95	52
1250	62	7	11	1	5	17
1252	2320	500	22	272	197	58
1254	455	32	7	15	17	47
1260	1293	172	13	70	98	42
1266	463	3	1	1	2	33
1268	295	8	3	6	2	75
1272	1911	189	10	88	94	48
1274	1585	145	9	49	88	36
1280	399	30	8	19	10	66
1284	2219	153	7	117	30	80
1288	40	5	13	3	1	75
1290	2130	224	11	127	88	59
1292	71	17	24	13	4	76
1296	713	34	5	24	9	73
1324	1282	73	6	42	29	59
1326	553	68	12	32	31	51
1340	12	3	25	3	0	100
1352	2210	161	7	91	68	57
1360	891	114	13	71	40	64
1372	153	2	1	1	0	100
TOTAL	41280	4731	11	2737	1827	60

Question 4 – Plurality or Majority?

---

Question 4
Strong Yes	Weak Yes	Very Close	Weak No	Strong No
Click the precinct on the map for vote totals.

Precinct	Registered	Cast	Turnout	YES	NO	Yes %
1186	1457	163	11	75	82	48
1188	897	63	7	25	34	42
1189	96	11	11	9	2	82
1190	3391	245	7	134	107	56
1192	1454	124	9	71	45	61
1194	2029	401	20	260	128	67
1228	446	65	15	33	31	52
1238	1680	301	18	115	178	39
1240	2506	301	12	163	131	55
1242	2559	400	16	215	161	57
1244	1567	206	13	111	89	56
1246	2397	275	11	87	179	33
1247	228	32	14	18	14	56
1248	1495	204	14	75	122	38
1250	62	7	11	2	4	33
1252	2320	500	22	234	230	50
1254	455	32	7	16	16	50
1260	1293	172	13	58	110	35
1266	463	3	1	0	3	0
1268	295	8	3	5	3	63
1272	1911	189	10	79	104	43
1274	1585	145	9	51	86	37
1280	399	30	8	18	11	62
1284	2219	153	7	106	42	72
1288	40	5	13	0	4	0
1290	2130	224	11	109	106	51
1292	71	17	24	11	5	69
1296	713	34	5	23	10	70
1324	1282	73	6	41	30	58
1326	553	68	12	23	40	37
1340	12	3	25	3	0	100
1352	2210	161	7	71	87	45
1360	891	114	13	55	56	50
1372	153	2	1	1	0	100
TOTAL	41280	4731	11	2297	2250	51

Please Vote NO on 3/13 – Palm Beach Gardens Election

• A Yes vote on Question 3 means that term-limited Council members can serve again with a 3 year sit-out between each 6 years in office.  There is no limit to the number of cycles that can be repeated.
• A Yes vote on Question 4, switches from Majority Wins (50%+1) to Plurality wins.  In a 2-candidate race there is no difference.  However in a multi candidate race, an incumbent can encourage other candidates to enter the race, thus diluting the votes and allowing the candidate with the most name recognition to win with a small percentage of the vote.

 

Contentious Emergency City Council Mtg Decision No Appeal

An emergency  City Council meeting was called sometime on March 5th for the following morning, March 6 at 8am to decide whether or not to appeal the decision on the ruling by Judge J. Joseph Curley, Jr. finding ballot Questions 1 and 2 invalid, last Friday March 3rd.

The meeting had a lot of fireworks and should be seen to be appreciated – however the outcome was that the City will not appeal, but should the plaintiff, Sid Dinerstein appeal the results on Questions 3 and 4, City Attorney Lohman was given the authorization to cross-appeal (thus re-challeging Questions 1 and 2).  The vote was 3:1 with Council Member Lane voting NO and Council Member Litt not present.

« Previous Page — Next Page »