In case you haven't noticed, representative democracy in Florida is turning paler and paler under the weight of special interests that dominate local county commissions and the state legislature. People get half the story, if the story at all.
Today, the county committee on budget and finance run by Bruno Barreiro and Barbara Jordan is considering a new ordinance reflecting the ongoing struggle between the county commission and the mayor.
The public hearing on a new ordinance (Agenda Item 4F) "amends the authority to sponsor agenda items and the disposition of reports." The agenda item, relating to the responsibility of county committees which review new ordinances, reports and matters before they are brought to the full county commission, is scheduled to be heard at 2PM, at County Hall.
The current ordinance provides, "A commission committee may take any one of the following actions regarding reports presented by, among others, the Mayor, County Manager, County Attorney, Clerk of the Board, County boards or any other person or entity authorized to present a report: (1) receive the report without endorsing any of the conclusions or recommendations contained therein; (2) adopt the report including all or some of the conclusions and/or recommendations contained therein; or (3) reject the report resulting in the matter not being placed on an agenda of the county commission. Reports which have been received or adopted as provided in the preceding sentence may be placed on a county commission agenda at the request of the presenter of the report."
The new ordinance clarifies the ability of the Mayor to put reports before the commission-- the purpose of reports is to provide background and facts to substantiate further action by county government, including regulations. As these regulations pertain to land use decisions, reports are subject to intense behind-the-scenes manipulation by land speculators, developers, and campaign contributors--often one in the same.
Consider, the case of the South Miami Dade Watershed Study that was "received" by the county commission-- to the irritation and anger of Natacha Seijas-- but without endorsement.
The meaning of "received" is that the data incorporated in the report is accepted by the relevant county department and may provide guidance beyond the hands-on direction of either the county manager or individual county commissioners who meddle in the operations of county departments.
Today's public hearing, in addition to clarifying the mayor's ability to submit reports (although I'm not entirely clear what was wrong with the language of the existing ordinance that needs to be corrected) adds a toxic recommendation that makes it easier for reports to die and never emerge from committee.
The new language shows the way for committees to bottle up reports by "laying them on the table", and if action is deferred for two consecutive committee meetings the report then dies. And if a report does emerge from committee: "no recommendations contained in the report shall be implemented except as expressly provided for in the motion or resolution adopting the report."
So, recipes for gridlock in county government are being reinforced by this new proposed ordinance. Perhaps the mayor's ability to voice changes is being strengthened, but so is the capacity of the county commission to throttle his or her voice.
The real victim here is any breath of fresh air or daylight that could emerge from reports proposing changes to the status quo: these are thoroughly shackled with heavy iron chain.
5 comments:
Somehow term limits have to get on the ballot. How many signatures would be required based on the most recent elections?
To paraphrase the great Allen Iverson, "Reports, we are talking about reports??" At the end of the day, reports today can be implemented or voted down by the Commission as it stands today. So what if it can be done at the committee level? It is all done in the public, so, if they reject a report that the people want to see implemented, they should pay at when each comes up for reelection. We do have a representative democracy. The Mayor can use his bully pulpit to extoll the virtues of whatever report he or his administration submits for consideration. That fact that he is incapable, well, maybe we need to elect a capable Mayor this year.
Term limits would still give us 8 more years of the creeps.
Term limits gives you the stellar talent pool we have in Tallahassee now.
The answer is public campaign finance.
The Charter Commission recommended stripping all the BS the commission loaded onto citizen refferendum via petition.
The same should be done to restore public campaign financing.
If you have competitive elections, ie nearly equal funding, then it's a battle of ideas and a referrendum on the incumbent instead of the system we have now where the ncumbent swamps the competition 5 to 1 in fundraising.
Gimleteye writes:
Agree. We also need a limited campaign season as provided for voters in Great Britain. Who benefits from the interminable rounds of fund raising? And the presidential primary fiasco is mind-numbing: have we learned a single thing we didn't know about the presidential candidates (esp. the Democrats Clinton and Obama) and especially though this painful Pennsylvania primary?
All this method of electing a president seems to fulfill is the need of television networks for content and ads. It's horrendous.
Post a Comment