ORDINANCE 073594. RELATING TO COUNTY BOARDS; AMENDING SECTION 2-11.38 TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS A PENDING LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON A COUNTY BOARD UNLESS THIS REQUIREMENT IS WAIVED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
The language of the ordinance also says:
“No person sitting on a County Board may file a lawsuit against the County without relinquishing his or her seat on the County Board...”
Okay. Follow my illogic. Let’s say we buy the above crappy ordinance. Remember I reported that the County was suing the County (in the Third District Court of Appeals) in my March 7th Blog? And, isn’t the County collectively the Board of County Commissioners?
Does that mean that the Commissioners cannot serve on the BOARD of the County since they have a lawsuit against the County? The ordinance says they are not eligible to serve on a County Board right? So then, who would they get the 2/3 vote from, they would have to be disqualified from voting. Maybe the public would have to vote by a two thirds margin to keep them on the Board. That would be fun. This is all too technical for my brain but such a happy exercise. Spoon them back their own crap.
To make it easier here is a less controversial example. Given, the Commissioners still have that pesky lawsuit where they are suing the county, would it mean that the two Commissioners serving on the Public Health Trust can’t serve without a two thirds vote? And would it have meant that the two Commissioners on the Charter Review Board would have had to step down? I would love their shenanigans to backfire on them, the implications could be endless.
Word to the wise: If you commissioners pass this stupid ordinance you will most likely live to regret it. This ordinance is purely punitive, directed at “someone specific” they want to punish...I guess you all know that already. Maybe it is Former
Miami Beach Mayor David Dermer who is suing over draconian rules the County placed on petition gatherers. He was on the Charter Review Board and he was not nice enough to Natacha, so I am sure she loves this ordinance and I would guess she got Pepe Diaz to sponsor it for her.People, note one last important point, this ordinance has already passed 6 to 0 in the Committee headed by none other than the Vile Natacha Seijas.
9 comments:
This new ordinance, as well as many others already passed, have the ONLY intention to quash dissent from any citizen. Members of the BCC really believe they are PERFECT.
From the Clerk's summary on the county website:
The foregoing proposed ordinance was read into the record by Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan. Chairwoman Seijas opened the public hearing and there being no one to appear, the public hearing was closed. In response to Commissioner Gimenez’ request for clarification, Commissioner Diaz explained the intent of this ordinance was to prevent anyone with a pending lawsuit against the County from serving on a County Board while the lawsuit was pending unless the requirement was waived by two-thirds vote of the County Commission members. Commissioner Gimenez pointed out that the individual appointed could be removed from that appointment if the lawsuit was egregious, but he preferred to support the rights of people to sue and could not support this ordinance. Chairwoman Seijas stated she concurred with this ordinance as intended if the lawsuit was offensive to the County, however, her concern was disrespecting the rights of people in pending lawsuits that have merit. She suggested forwarding this ordinance without a recommendation, to allow the sponsor to clarify the language by possibly classifying the lawsuits. Commissioner Martinez suggested the language in this ordinance be applicable only to lawsuits that would contradict a policy adopted by the Board. Assistant County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan responded to Commissioner Gimenez’ question regarding whether the Board, as a whole, could remove appointed individuals. She noted she believed the specific legislation creating the board dictated the terms in which the individual could be removed. Commissioner Gimenez noted he would support this ordinance being forward today without a recommendation, but would not support it before the full Board of County Commissioners. Chairwoman Seijas noted she concurred with Commissioner Gimenez’ concern regarding individual rights, but suggested that in respect of the sponsors, this ordinance be forwarded without a recommendation so that frivolous lawsuits could be identified. Hearing no further comments or questions, the Committee proceeded to forward the forgoing proposed ordinance to the County Commission without a recommendation. Chairwoman Seijas asked that this ordinance be forwarded to the March 18th BCC meeting.
So if you get hit by a bus and it was the bus driver's fault and you happen to sit on a county board, you have to ask permission to stay on the board while you litigate?
The appointing commissioner almost always retains the right to remove people from boards anyway.
I suspect Commissioner Seijas loves this ordinance, she just gave lip service so as to not seem anti-public. Make no mistake she has the votes. Didn't the committee to recall Seijas have to sue to have the signatures counted? The committee won; must have given Seijas the red a--. She bided her time and after the great Charter Review she saw her opportunity to strike. Was Diaz a pupet for her or a like-minded comrade? More loss of our civil rights by a dysfunction commission desperate to keep control through intimidation.
I hate that they say "Passed" when all they actually did was "pass it along." You would think the clerk would say it more accurately...
Why did Gimenez pass it along?
Probably because he thought this issue should be heard by the full BCC, and you cannot pass something out of committee with a "NO recommendation" unless it is unanimous.
moderate
It passed today, with Sorenson, Heyman, Gimenez and one other opposed.
The other no vote was Souto; unfortunately not enough to sustain a mayoral veto. But the mayor could/should veto just on principal. Shine a light on the cockroaches.
Post a Comment